What's with the insanely huge images in the OP? 
This doesn't exactly set a formal tone, guys.
No images means no images.
This doesn't exactly set a formal tone, guys.No images means no images.
Formal Debate Discussion Thread
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
I am a bit disappointed that my position of government-mandated taxes on churches to fund contraception and abortion experiments in space is not represented. I could understand my position not being represented if it was extreme, but since it is moderate, I would expect it to be brought up. Perhaps it is an implicit given with no need to be mentioned. Otherwise, commendable job of building tl:dr posts.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I think more government monies should be diverted into researching the radical genetic modification of all mammalian life forms to enable them to more fully achieve self-consciousness, and the ability to carry on moderately intelligent small-talk.
(I have a hidden and nefarious motive for this. So I think it quite reasonable.)
(I have a hidden and nefarious motive for this. So I think it quite reasonable.)
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Because most people will see the folly of such a position. There is nothing wrong with the science behind NASA, just some of the things they do are going way out on tangent that it is not really showing any value at all. I think people willknow which specific program I am talking about.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
The debate so far is quite interesting. The format may cut an interesting point of debate, but it will allow to argue over all of the claims, which is good and too often doesn't happen.
On the other hand, I must say that I'm leaning towards warpus. As I already said, and Earthling too IIRC, his initial claims look more clear and straightforward, and so far he has defended them well, whereas it seems to me that hobbs is repeating and emphasising too heavily the economic return of NASA R&D.
On the other hand, I must say that I'm leaning towards warpus. As I already said, and Earthling too IIRC, his initial claims look more clear and straightforward, and so far he has defended them well, whereas it seems to me that hobbs is repeating and emphasising too heavily the economic return of NASA R&D.
You make the incorrect assumption that money assigned to NASA is supposed to see a real return on investment. That is patently not the case. NASA us a government contracting agency, whose purview is science, research, and technology required to operate in and study earth's upper atmosphere, near space environment, and the solar system.
And I'll admit I have no idea what you're referring to by "way out on a tangent" programmes. Does this have to do with Young Earth Christian stuff?
Hmm, I think that warpus has picked a rather moderate position, which means this debate is now mostly about the very details, which are hard to judge for outsiders. I think it might have been more interesting if one of the parties was advocating stopping the space program altogether. (Not that I support that position)
Which means I agree with GhostWriter!!!
Which means I agree with GhostWriter!!!
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I think warpus has successfully overturned the notion of increasing NASA funding on economic grounds.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
Points are too short. Replies are too short. Lacks... passion. Boring. Sorry, debaters, I'm mostly blaming the form of the debate but it is the one you've chosen. Strict rules debates are just... boring.
To me it's kind of the opposite. I want to see one liners at ten paces.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The more I participate in this the more I see the benefits of a structured debate with rigid rules. I used to never take "debate club" type things seriously, but I guess I never really "got it"
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Are you on msn? That way we can ping eachother when it's the others' turn to go - or msg eachother when something unexpected happens such as what just happened.
That or we should both get on #fiftychat
This is the most civilized and gentleman-like debate ever. At the end of this I might have to smack you, just so things will feel normal again
That or we should both get on #fiftychat
This is the most civilized and gentleman-like debate ever. At the end of this I might have to smack you, just so things will feel normal again
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
I submit that the official thread name of this thread be changed slightly to reflect its specific nature to this forum's recently conceived 1-on-1 debates 'ere Wednesday night, else one risks extensive confusion, & possible cross-posting.
Who knows, though, maybe "Formal Debate Discussion Thread" will not be confused with "the frikkin' Presidential Debate which is hapnin' upon Wednesday".
Just tossing it out there. For your consideration. Just sayin'.
Who knows, though, maybe "Formal Debate Discussion Thread" will not be confused with "the frikkin' Presidential Debate which is hapnin' upon Wednesday".
Just tossing it out there. For your consideration. Just sayin'.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Interesting, where this is going. Although to be honest, I don't like that hobbs point was discussed mainly over nukes in space in the end.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Okay, I guess we can start discussing before we vote?
Hmm... I found that Warpus's opening points held more weight with me intuitively. They were also well formulated from the start.
I found Hobbsyoyo's opening claims to be provocative but also very vague appealing heavily to the abstract, and not very specific even in that.
I felt Warpus supported the first argument generally well, but I think he skated over NASA's projected inability for manned flight capability. Obama canned manned flight about 2 years ago. Most of the major space powers are mid-way to manned Moon missions. I'd posit NASA could lose manned space capability versus other nations, although I believe we have some of that stashed under national defense in some capacity.
I liked Hobbsyoyo's rebuttal on the point of the ISS. Referring to Wikipedia which is well-referenced on the topic, most of the scientific value of the ISS is cited to about 2008. I'm aware that the value of ISS to protein research was unfortunately found to be nil. I don't know about continued value in medical research and material physics/chemistry.
I disagree that the JWST will be cancelled, so I dock that for a factual point, based on my own 'net search.
I wasn't impressed with the concern that Curiousity's design was original enough. Modular re-use is a good engineering practice. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Just using JWST as an example, it was of concern when spending reached $3 billion, but Congress agreed last year that it was of value enough to cap at $8 billion, which hopefully it will reach in the projected 6 years to completion. I think it's fair to take this as a 'dipstick' for NASA, since it's been in design about 30-some years. It's still in developmental testing but it seems on track for final assembly. I'd say that the key is flexibility in designing these projects. The core goals can be met if project management remains flexible with rising cost and performance goals. If delaying the launch will possibly see technological innovation that will decrease cost, then that is an acceptable approach to manage costs, since not every project is time critical (e.g. they're not all comet rendezvous nor space races to demonstrate superiority). There's a saying that you can't have all three: quality, price, and deadline---and sacrificing deadline is probably the safest way to achieve bang for the buck while responding to economic pressures. I think Hobbsyoyo is unconvincingly alarmist about the future of space science in that regard---progress will continue and cancellations won't be necessary at steady budgeting levels, if flexibility is assured in deadline for projects that are not top-most in the national priorities.
I give clear victory to Warpus on rebuttal to Hobbsyoyo's second point on the economic value of NASA projects. Exploration (but also Science) are the primary reasons for funding when private industry can't be interested but would ultimately gain in a future generation. The immediate trickle-down effect of taxing/debt for spending on government projects does not grow the economy sustainably, UNLESS it can then spin off into private endeavor. Neither of you directly suggested that last point, except Warpus who suggested it in the opening point. Hobbsyoyo did touch on it later by mentioning contracting, although it's still not the trickle-down effect that is important, but the potential for government projects to turn private business onto private space venture.
I feel Warpus didn't fully debate this point, nor fully credited Hobbsyoyo on the topic, but Hobbsyoyo rebuts with a very fallacious argument that is mainly inflation-based; creating more salaried positions comes somewhere---BY BORROWING DEBT, and that can be a high risk loan if there is no business plan for profit. A bank is unlikely to extend say $900 million to a business with a weak business plan with no intent to actually turn $900 million into say $1Billion. Why is it magical when government does it? The answer is it isn't necessarily going to turn an economic benefit, and arguing the trickle effect is weaker. If you are going to use inflationary practice, then yes it is better to fund NASA than say a National Video Gaming Bureau (e.g. imagine a Federal STEAM), but it's weak to argue that leads to a happy trickle down. To give a concrete example, the Apollo mission obviously didn't lead to private space mission capsules going to the moon to excavate, promote tourism, at least not in a reasonable appreciable time frame (say within 20 years of their completion). And a funny counter example is that velcro, was not invented by NASA, but adopted and popularized it during the moon missions; that doesn't erase scientific knowledge trickle from Apollo missions---I find: CAT scan/MRI, physical therapy, kidney dialysis machines, freeze-drying substances, water purifiers, material coatings, and insulation materials. In short, tackling a huge engineering problem led to huge gains in engineering and science. Is this strictly a space exploration thing---to some extent, but what about for oceanic exploration, or deep earth exploration? Anyway, I think you both glossed over the science gains, although Hobbsyoyo brought up benefits from Federal ail mail.
Hobbsyoyo is making NASA out as science welfare, above an beyond say NSF grants. I find that fallacious. It also weakly supports the idea of a moral/economic necessity to NASA funding. That same funding could go through public universities (perhaps some of it does as is typical with other agency spending) to similar effect to sponsoring a scientific make-work for national benefit. NASA exists not for that reason but for real science in the national will, per Executive and Legislative decision (a la the President and Congress); most government activities more or less are arms of the President excepting if they are legislative or judicial (e.g. DOJ, SCOTUS). If the President determined NASA had fulfilled its mission in full, it'd be fully moral and economic for him to order it shuttered, just like any military base closure.
I find Hobbsyoyo confusing 'religion' with a higher NATIONAL 'moral' cause to be fallacious. Citing Genesis (not Phil Collins LOL) is just out and out wrong and spitting all over the US Constitution which some many people have fought and died for to ensure a freedom of religion. Hobbsyoyo's argument is horrible here. It is fine for a NASA employee to be motivated to serve through their religious faith, but to mandate that as law is ridiculous. I say that as a religious person who appreciates the importance of separation of church and state.
Projecting a sort of 'Global Defense' as the moral cause for NASA as an asteroid defense is more acceptable in terms of line of argument, even if it currently is impractical. Positing some sort of global warming fighting capacity to NASA is provocative but very weak. NASA as part of an international coalition to fight global warming is more believable. It is GLOBAL after all. I'm skeptical of the technological practicality of that though, just as I'm skeptical of effective asteroid defense.
The last point about spreading life is debatable as a nationalist goal. Hobbsyoyo seems to be suggesting a "don't keep your eggs in one basket" ideology which is reasonable. Near Earth Orbit colonization is not unreasonable, nor is Mars colonization, nor is asteroid belt colonization. They are not unreasonable, but it remains to be seen if colonization is really a national priority. I'd argue that a humanist priority is such, but possibly not a strictly American goal, unless international competition or international cooperation pushes for it.
Hobbsyoyo bringing up NEEMO 16 to sim the near-earth orbit asteroids is interesting. That is a novel research. How much 'more' is needed to begin an asteroid mission though? It is agreeable that more money would allow this to move closer to an asteroid mission, but is such money needed in an immediate time frame? What about at a future time AFTER a current mission is completed? Specifics are needed here. It does generally support the Hobbsyoyo's argument though there.
And this mission, NEEMO actually supports Warpus's point that NASA adapts to funding and still comes out doing valid research in the national interest. It is a reasonable step in the project management cycle.
Neither of you convinced me about national prestige vs. economic reality. It's like peaches and pie crust. You need both for the peach cobbler. The devil is in the details with something like this. Will this result in companies from lessons learned that can do global business to boost the US economies? Or is it just a trophy to enjoy while eating humble pie? Also while I agree that prestige does play a role, at least in the field of contention when doing say trade on the basis of rocket science, Hobbsyoyo failed to make a quantifiable argument. So this remained sort of a vague ideological argument. Of the three supporting arguments here, competitiveness against rivals was the main strong one that Hobbsyoyo made regarding prestige; keeping up with the Jones is a sort of universal truth even over generations.
I think Warpus made a weak point about apathy to space exploration, and Hobbsyoyo picked up on that. However Hobbsyoyo, I can cite that when Curiosity landed, the stocks rallied (a very modest percentage on DJ500), but it was attributed to the jobs report being stronger. People may go into science on the basis of curiosity about any national or private space project, so I both agree and disagree of that value of national space exploration. I think Hobbsyoyo impressed me a little more in this mini exchange, but both were a bit weakly ideological here.
But I have to say do the current projects FAIL to boost national prestige versus ones that we might do with increased spending levels??? Warpus impressed me by rebutting with this very point.
So far I find Hobbsyoyo is a provocative and ideological debater, but I'm finding that Warpus is making more logical points and sticking closer to researchable fact. Also using NASA to trounce the US Constitution is patently wrong.
For me a big point not touched on is what would be the impact of the associated taxes on present or future private space ventures if we continue to raise NASA spending? It's not unreasonable to suggest the private space endeavors will be competed with my the government, and that will place a high bar on private space ventures. I think NASA is relinquishing to private space carriers, or close to doing so. That might be a good reason focus on only specific types of missions such as pure science or highly speculative missions that venture capitalists might not want to endorse.
Stopping here to let Hobbsyoyo rebuttal Warpus about private exploration.
Hmm... I found that Warpus's opening points held more weight with me intuitively. They were also well formulated from the start.
I found Hobbsyoyo's opening claims to be provocative but also very vague appealing heavily to the abstract, and not very specific even in that.
I felt Warpus supported the first argument generally well, but I think he skated over NASA's projected inability for manned flight capability. Obama canned manned flight about 2 years ago. Most of the major space powers are mid-way to manned Moon missions. I'd posit NASA could lose manned space capability versus other nations, although I believe we have some of that stashed under national defense in some capacity.
I liked Hobbsyoyo's rebuttal on the point of the ISS. Referring to Wikipedia which is well-referenced on the topic, most of the scientific value of the ISS is cited to about 2008. I'm aware that the value of ISS to protein research was unfortunately found to be nil. I don't know about continued value in medical research and material physics/chemistry.
I disagree that the JWST will be cancelled, so I dock that for a factual point, based on my own 'net search.
I wasn't impressed with the concern that Curiousity's design was original enough. Modular re-use is a good engineering practice. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Just using JWST as an example, it was of concern when spending reached $3 billion, but Congress agreed last year that it was of value enough to cap at $8 billion, which hopefully it will reach in the projected 6 years to completion. I think it's fair to take this as a 'dipstick' for NASA, since it's been in design about 30-some years. It's still in developmental testing but it seems on track for final assembly. I'd say that the key is flexibility in designing these projects. The core goals can be met if project management remains flexible with rising cost and performance goals. If delaying the launch will possibly see technological innovation that will decrease cost, then that is an acceptable approach to manage costs, since not every project is time critical (e.g. they're not all comet rendezvous nor space races to demonstrate superiority). There's a saying that you can't have all three: quality, price, and deadline---and sacrificing deadline is probably the safest way to achieve bang for the buck while responding to economic pressures. I think Hobbsyoyo is unconvincingly alarmist about the future of space science in that regard---progress will continue and cancellations won't be necessary at steady budgeting levels, if flexibility is assured in deadline for projects that are not top-most in the national priorities.
I give clear victory to Warpus on rebuttal to Hobbsyoyo's second point on the economic value of NASA projects. Exploration (but also Science) are the primary reasons for funding when private industry can't be interested but would ultimately gain in a future generation. The immediate trickle-down effect of taxing/debt for spending on government projects does not grow the economy sustainably, UNLESS it can then spin off into private endeavor. Neither of you directly suggested that last point, except Warpus who suggested it in the opening point. Hobbsyoyo did touch on it later by mentioning contracting, although it's still not the trickle-down effect that is important, but the potential for government projects to turn private business onto private space venture.
I feel Warpus didn't fully debate this point, nor fully credited Hobbsyoyo on the topic, but Hobbsyoyo rebuts with a very fallacious argument that is mainly inflation-based; creating more salaried positions comes somewhere---BY BORROWING DEBT, and that can be a high risk loan if there is no business plan for profit. A bank is unlikely to extend say $900 million to a business with a weak business plan with no intent to actually turn $900 million into say $1Billion. Why is it magical when government does it? The answer is it isn't necessarily going to turn an economic benefit, and arguing the trickle effect is weaker. If you are going to use inflationary practice, then yes it is better to fund NASA than say a National Video Gaming Bureau (e.g. imagine a Federal STEAM), but it's weak to argue that leads to a happy trickle down. To give a concrete example, the Apollo mission obviously didn't lead to private space mission capsules going to the moon to excavate, promote tourism, at least not in a reasonable appreciable time frame (say within 20 years of their completion). And a funny counter example is that velcro, was not invented by NASA, but adopted and popularized it during the moon missions; that doesn't erase scientific knowledge trickle from Apollo missions---I find: CAT scan/MRI, physical therapy, kidney dialysis machines, freeze-drying substances, water purifiers, material coatings, and insulation materials. In short, tackling a huge engineering problem led to huge gains in engineering and science. Is this strictly a space exploration thing---to some extent, but what about for oceanic exploration, or deep earth exploration? Anyway, I think you both glossed over the science gains, although Hobbsyoyo brought up benefits from Federal ail mail.
Hobbsyoyo is making NASA out as science welfare, above an beyond say NSF grants. I find that fallacious. It also weakly supports the idea of a moral/economic necessity to NASA funding. That same funding could go through public universities (perhaps some of it does as is typical with other agency spending) to similar effect to sponsoring a scientific make-work for national benefit. NASA exists not for that reason but for real science in the national will, per Executive and Legislative decision (a la the President and Congress); most government activities more or less are arms of the President excepting if they are legislative or judicial (e.g. DOJ, SCOTUS). If the President determined NASA had fulfilled its mission in full, it'd be fully moral and economic for him to order it shuttered, just like any military base closure.
I find Hobbsyoyo confusing 'religion' with a higher NATIONAL 'moral' cause to be fallacious. Citing Genesis (not Phil Collins LOL) is just out and out wrong and spitting all over the US Constitution which some many people have fought and died for to ensure a freedom of religion. Hobbsyoyo's argument is horrible here. It is fine for a NASA employee to be motivated to serve through their religious faith, but to mandate that as law is ridiculous. I say that as a religious person who appreciates the importance of separation of church and state.
Projecting a sort of 'Global Defense' as the moral cause for NASA as an asteroid defense is more acceptable in terms of line of argument, even if it currently is impractical. Positing some sort of global warming fighting capacity to NASA is provocative but very weak. NASA as part of an international coalition to fight global warming is more believable. It is GLOBAL after all. I'm skeptical of the technological practicality of that though, just as I'm skeptical of effective asteroid defense.
The last point about spreading life is debatable as a nationalist goal. Hobbsyoyo seems to be suggesting a "don't keep your eggs in one basket" ideology which is reasonable. Near Earth Orbit colonization is not unreasonable, nor is Mars colonization, nor is asteroid belt colonization. They are not unreasonable, but it remains to be seen if colonization is really a national priority. I'd argue that a humanist priority is such, but possibly not a strictly American goal, unless international competition or international cooperation pushes for it.
Hobbsyoyo bringing up NEEMO 16 to sim the near-earth orbit asteroids is interesting. That is a novel research. How much 'more' is needed to begin an asteroid mission though? It is agreeable that more money would allow this to move closer to an asteroid mission, but is such money needed in an immediate time frame? What about at a future time AFTER a current mission is completed? Specifics are needed here. It does generally support the Hobbsyoyo's argument though there.
And this mission, NEEMO actually supports Warpus's point that NASA adapts to funding and still comes out doing valid research in the national interest. It is a reasonable step in the project management cycle.
Neither of you convinced me about national prestige vs. economic reality. It's like peaches and pie crust. You need both for the peach cobbler. The devil is in the details with something like this. Will this result in companies from lessons learned that can do global business to boost the US economies? Or is it just a trophy to enjoy while eating humble pie? Also while I agree that prestige does play a role, at least in the field of contention when doing say trade on the basis of rocket science, Hobbsyoyo failed to make a quantifiable argument. So this remained sort of a vague ideological argument. Of the three supporting arguments here, competitiveness against rivals was the main strong one that Hobbsyoyo made regarding prestige; keeping up with the Jones is a sort of universal truth even over generations.
I think Warpus made a weak point about apathy to space exploration, and Hobbsyoyo picked up on that. However Hobbsyoyo, I can cite that when Curiosity landed, the stocks rallied (a very modest percentage on DJ500), but it was attributed to the jobs report being stronger. People may go into science on the basis of curiosity about any national or private space project, so I both agree and disagree of that value of national space exploration. I think Hobbsyoyo impressed me a little more in this mini exchange, but both were a bit weakly ideological here.
But I have to say do the current projects FAIL to boost national prestige versus ones that we might do with increased spending levels??? Warpus impressed me by rebutting with this very point.
So far I find Hobbsyoyo is a provocative and ideological debater, but I'm finding that Warpus is making more logical points and sticking closer to researchable fact. Also using NASA to trounce the US Constitution is patently wrong.
For me a big point not touched on is what would be the impact of the associated taxes on present or future private space ventures if we continue to raise NASA spending? It's not unreasonable to suggest the private space endeavors will be competed with my the government, and that will place a high bar on private space ventures. I think NASA is relinquishing to private space carriers, or close to doing so. That might be a good reason focus on only specific types of missions such as pure science or highly speculative missions that venture capitalists might not want to endorse.
Stopping here to let Hobbsyoyo rebuttal Warpus about private exploration.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
I'm not liking hobbs. Precisely because, as stated above, he seems to be more of an ideological debater, most of his points are conjectures and vague affirmations of a better future, whereas warpus has exposed pretty well that hobbs conjectures won't achieve as big an impact as he would so expect and even less in the short-term, which is dominated by the nigh global crisis and budget cuts. So far, I think that warpus is winning. And I wanted to be an astronomer as a child.
