Space

[Iceman]

So I got tired of looking at the same threads in ROTW, so I decided to create one.

Should we fund more or less to space exploration, or should we cut NASA all together? Give me your insight.

[User Deleted]

Well I think their current funding is adequate

[Amnesiac]

I think the space program is good as it is; it'll be a while before the private sector embraces things like space tourism and colonization. Those are incredibly expensive and long-term projects that most corporations don't have the will to invest in.

I think we should research depositing human waste and radioactive material in space as well. It seems like a quick and painless solution to the lack of storage space for these materials we have on Earth. Just dump it in space (out of orbit, of course).

[Iceman]

I think the space program is good as it is; it'll be a while before the private sector embraces things like space tourism and colonization. Those are incredibly expensive and long-term projects that most corporations don't have the will to invest in.

I think we should research depositing human waste and radioactive material in space as well. It seems like a quick and painless solution to the lack of storage space for these materials we have on Earth. Just dump it in space (out of orbit, of course).

I thought about that before, but what if that was on Space Shuttle Columbia, and then it would be scattered throughout the atmosphere.

[Sage]

I think the space program is good as it is; it'll be a while before the private sector embraces things like space tourism and colonization. Those are incredibly expensive and long-term projects that most corporations don't have the will to invest in.
The private sector already has begun work on space tourism, it's just a matter of developing the process into something more cost effective and marketable at the moment.

I think we should research depositing human waste and radioactive material in space as well. It seems like a quick and painless solution to the lack of storage space for these materials we have on Earth. Just dump it in space (out of orbit, of course).
I agree with this as well, though garbage can be dangerous if it's orbiting a planet, especially one with as many satellites as Earth. I think launching these things into the sun would be most effective, especially considering they'd all likely burn up before getting within hundreds of thousands of miles of it anyway.

[Amnesiac]

I thought about that before, but what if that was on Space Shuttle Columbia, and then it would be scattered throughout the atmosphere.

That's one challenge, to find a secure way of transporting this material.

The private sector already has begun work on space tourism, it's just a matter of developing the process into something more cost effective and marketable at the moment.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. It just seems like the private sector won't have any sort of interest in this for many years, probably decades. It's up to Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures and SpaceX to build this industry.

I agree with this as well, though garbage can be dangerous if it's orbiting a planet, especially one with as many satellites as Earth. I think launching these things into the sun would be most effective, especially considering they'd all likely burn up before getting within hundreds of thousands of miles of it anyway.

Honestly, it doesn't seem like it would be terribly hard to build a ship that could launch garbage and hazardous materials into deep space/the Sun. It's just the costs and, as Tyler mentioned, the high levels of security needed.

Still, definitely a good idea.

[Iceman]

The costs would be the main issue, besides safety of course. You couldn't get large amounts of anything in at one time right now. There would have to be a specialized rocket with good capacity.

[Amnesiac]

The costs would be the main issue, besides safety of course. You couldn't get large amounts of anything in at one time right now. There would have to be a specialized rocket with good capacity.

I bet something could be developed that can carry a decent amount of whatever. For now, I see cargo spaceships (or whatever you want to call them) as being developed primarily for radioactive waste and other substances that kill people. Finding a safe way to deposit those in space would solve so many problems with pollution and nuclear power.

[Iceman]

And they woudn't have to build nuclear waste plants. They tried building one about 1/4 of a mile from my grandma's house. What the hell! Find somewhere not near an elderly community.
Like this and fill it with waste:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/21_separation.jpg

[Amnesiac]

And they woudn't have to build nuclear waste plants. They tried building one about 1/4 of a mile from my grandma's house. What the hell! Find somewhere not near an elderly community.
Like this and fill it with waste:
image (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/files/imagecache/news/files/21_separation.jpg)

Hmm... what is that? It looks like a solution. However, these containers would have to be retrievable, nobody's going to spend millions of dollars to send radioactive waste into space and then never get the ship back.

[Iceman]

Hmm... what is that? It looks like a solution. However, these containers would have to be retrievable, nobody's going to spend millions of dollars to send radioactive waste into space and then never get the ship back.

Well you would have to put engines on both ends in that case. Then once it's getting going toward the Sun, you can open the top and let the materials go. They will continue in motion until they get burned by the Sun. Then fire the engines and come back home.

[Limelight788]

I am not in favor of cutting NASA all together. Not only can they promote exploration toward the Moon and other planets, they can also help determine the very survival of humans, if by some reason that the Earth becomes uninhabitable for a long period of time.

That being said, funding should stay the same for now. Once we get our economy back in order, which we will in a few years or hopefully earlier, then we can start increasing fund for space exploration again.

[Korashk]

Hmm... what is that? It looks like a solution. However, these containers would have to be retrievable, nobody's going to spend millions of dollars to send radioactive waste into space and then never get the ship back.
Why not? I'd imagine that designing a container meant for a one-way trip would be substantially cheaper than designing one meant to be retrieved. It would have to be able to survive reentry, it would have to have a way to evacuate the waste material in an automated fashion, it would have to have some sort of guidance system so that it could drive itself. There is just so much more that would need to be done, that it would be more efficient to make them disposable.

[Amnesiac]

Well you would have to put engines on both ends in that case. Then once it's getting going toward the Sun, you can open the top and let the materials go. They will continue in motion until they get burned by the Sun. Then fire the engines and come back home.

The designing for that would be very tricky: how do you get close enough to to sun to propel the waste into it without destroying the ship too? How do you design a ship that can both carry large amounts of waste and travel back to Earth and away from the Sun's gravity?

Why not? I'd imagine that designing a container meant for a one-way trip would be substantially cheaper than designing one meant to be retrieved. It would have to be able to survive reentry, it would have to have a way to evacuate the waste material in an automated fashion, it would have to have some sort of guidance system so that it could drive itself. There is just so much more that would need to be done, that it would be more efficient to make them disposable.

The problem is that, for now, anything space-related is incredibly expensive. I bet it's probably possible to design a disposable ship made with inexpensive materials that can send hazardous waste to the sun, but the technology required is expensive nonetheless.

Really, we can't say which option is cheaper until someone does the research and estimates the short- and long-term costs of disposable and reusable waste spaceships.

[Iceman]

Really, we can't say which option is cheaper until someone does the research and estimates the short- and long-term costs of disposable and reusable waste spaceships.

Any takers? No, no?

[Azunite]

Space is the future. Although NASA's potential has declined a bit these years, we must not stop funding it, in my opinion we should speed up the space exploration process. We must develop NASA further.

[thingmebob]

I think the ability to explore space is one of the most important inventions of human kind, and therefore believe humans should continue to explore. If the US cannot continue to do so, space exploration will not stop. It will only increase, as the Chinese continue to but their billions and billions of spare revenue into programs such as space exploration.

[Sith Lord 13]

1) NASA funding needs to be increased. I want a lunar colony damnit.

2) What about a orbital garbage station? Reusable ferry ships bring it all up there, then low tech containers can be launched at the sun from there. Hell, it doesn't even need it's own propulsion. Just shoot it out with a railgun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun)

[ghostbom]

I would love to see more funding into programs that are discovering earth before we explore space, but then again, vie been more fascinated over chemistry than I have over space and all that whatsit, sooooo yea haha.

[Severus Snape]

For now funding should be severely reduced. As a matter of fact all funding should be severely reduced until the US has paid off its substantial debt.

[Limelight788]

For now funding should be severely reduced. As a matter of fact all funding should be severely reduced until the US has paid off its substantial debt.
Although not preferred, I'd be okay with reducing space programs and stem cell research programs (Among other science-like programs and things revolving entertainment) until this recession ends (Although we are seeing the light out of the tunnel), but you can't expect the government to reduce everything that is essential to us until we pay off our debt ends by a substantial amount. That is going to take years, even decades to solve and even so, expecting that to happen is very difficult to do, we have not been out of debt in almost two centuries.

[Severus Snape]

Although not preferred, I'd be okay with reducing space programs and stem cell research programs (Among other science-like programs and things revolving entertainment) until this recession ends (Although we are seeing the light out of the tunnel), but you can't expect the government to reduce everything that is essential to us until we pay off our debt ends by a substantial amount. That is going to take years, even decades to solve and even so, expecting that to happen is very difficult to do, we have not been out of debt in almost two centuries.

Or we could elect Clinton to a third term. (http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)

I'm for smaller, more responsible government. The US government's spending is out of control and has been since the Bush era.

[Sith Lord 13]

Or we could elect Clinton to a third term. (http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)

I'm for smaller, more responsible government. The US government's spending is out of control and has been since the Bush era.

Actually, you could elect a Republican congress. They're the ones who came up with that budget.

[Severus Snape]

Actually, you could elect a Republican congress. They're the ones who came up with that budget.

That will never happen while the tea baggers are dominating the republican party.

But let's not make this a political debate

[Sith Lord 13]

That will never happen while the tea baggers are dominating the republican party.

But let's not make this a political debate

Actually tea partiers are A) Not dominating the Republicans and B) For even more fiscal responsibility. They're for slashing the budget more than the average Republican.

[Severus Snape]

Actually tea partiers are A) Not dominating the Republicans

That seems to be a matter of opinion

and B) For even more fiscal responsibility. They're for slashing the budget more than the average Republican.

In all the wrong areas. They would sacrifice social services on the altar of foreign aid.

[Sith Lord 13]

That seems to be a matter of opinion

Agreed

In all the wrong areas. They would sacrifice social services on the altar of foreign aid.

Care to link to some source on that? The closest I've heard of them coming to foreign aid is strengthening the military. Of course, I might be under informed on that.

[Severus Snape]

They want planned parenthood funding slashed but nothing is said of the millions sent to Israel annually or the billions sent to the x amount of nations we send support to on an annual basis to name just one example.

[Sith Lord 13]

They want planned parenthood funding slashed but nothing is said of the millions sent to Israel annually or the billions sent to the x amount of nations we send support to on an annual basis to name just one example.

From what I understand, they want that funding slashed as well. Again, source?

[Severus Snape]

Can you not google yourself?

http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/153645-41-senate-dems-oppose-gop-planned-parenthood-cuts

[Sith Lord 13]

Can you not google yourself?

I was giving you a chance to back up your claim before I refuted it.
Like so: Tea Party against foreign aid (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/israel-tea-party-support/2010/11/26/id/378162)

http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html

From 2008, is not a tea party document.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/153645-41-senate-dems-oppose-gop-planned-parenthood-cuts

Has nothing to do with foreign aid.

[Severus Snape]

I was giving you a chance to back up your claim before I refuted it.
Like so: Tea Party against foreign aid (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/israel-tea-party-support/2010/11/26/id/378162)

One opinion does not a policy make, but nice try.



From 2008, is not a tea party document.



Has nothing to do with foreign aid.

Ignore whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts,

[Sith Lord 13]

One opinion does not a policy make, but nice try.





Ignore whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts,

Do you have any valid evidence to back up your claim, besides your own opinion?

[Severus Snape]

All I am doing is gathering information and piecing together a profile of how the tea baggers irrationally and hypocritically paralyze the nation in a variety of ways, but most recently this budget fiasco. They want to cut social services. I don't know how you could disagree with that when they all say that is their goal. When it comes to cutting spending on defense they seem less willing to budge. If all you are going to do is attack my sources I don't know how to respond. Clearly I'm not going to convince you.

[dmeek7]

I think we NEED to have a space program. Maybe we could give more money? I just think that none should be taken away from the program, b/c we are going to need resources in the next 100 years, b/c we are running out. You also could think about how scientists are also researching new fuels, but until they come up with a good synthetic fuel that can be used for all motor vehicles, and doesn't cost a heafty penny, then we need a space program looking for new planets and/ or moons with resources.

[Sith Lord 13]

All I am doing is gathering information and piecing together a profile of how the tea baggers irrationally and hypocritically paralyze the nation in a variety of ways, but most recently this budget fiasco. They want to cut social services. I don't know how you could disagree with that when they all say that is their goal. When it comes to cutting spending on defense they seem less willing to budge. If all you are going to do is attack my sources I don't know how to respond. Clearly I'm not going to convince you.

I didn't disagree on the cutting of social services, I disagreed with how you contrasted it with Israeli aid, which they also favor cutting.

I think your other post had it right, let's not turn this into a political debate. If you want to continue, make a new thread, otherwise I'm content to let it rest.