Formal Debate Series I - Space Exploration
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
- Status
We will continue at the point we stopped at tomorrow at 6:30pm EST. I hope you enjoyed it and will tune in tomorrow!
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The time has actually been pushed back to 7pm for personal reasons. We'll see y'all then
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
The rules state that the order of posting for the second claim set is reversed, so I am up next. I forgot to put in the rules that the third set is reversed again; this was unententional and I'll be editing the rules to reflect that. This way, Warpus has the first post in the overall debate, I have the last one.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I believe that NASA should have it's budget increased for moral and ethical reasons.
1)In Genesis, God revealed to humanity that they should, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Many other religions have similar beliefs as expressed in their holy texts, practices and beliefs. Even to the nonbeliever, this is an essential truth: through our endevours, industrious nature and hunger for resources, we have expanded and now hold the ultimate fate of the planet in our hands.
If we wish to avoid draining the life of our homeworld, we need to take care of it - this is an essential part of dominion over nature. But before you can take care of something, before you can fix a problem, you need to understand it. NASA is in an excellent position to do this through research and exploration.
Whether or not they are launching satellites to study the atmosphere, placing sensors on tectonic plate boundaries, or furthering our understanding of the particle physics that determine the climate, NASA first and foremost is giving us the knowledge we need to tackle many of the issues the Earth faces; be they pollution, global warming, the spread of invasives species and others.
We can see the writing on the wall - there are factors both inside and outside of our control that cause problems for life on Earth. We can see the writing, but we'll never decipher it without adequate budgets for research and innovative solutions. This is why NASA needs more funding, they are in a unique postition to figure out the problems and work to correct them.
2)Somewhere in the vast, unknowable void is an asteroid with a tatoo that reads, 'I pwn planets'. A cousin to this asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and countless others have rained hellfire and damnation on the defenseless creatures of our planet. It's only a matter of time before this asteroid pays us a visit and makes good on the claim scrawled in ink on it's rocky surface.
We know this has happened before, and it will happen again. Just over 100 years ago, a comet exploded over Tunguska, Russia and leveled hundreds of square miles of forest. The resulting fires turned night to day as far away as London as this nightmare from outer space paid death and destruction to a large part of the ecosystem where it hit.
On this chance happening, humanity was lucky that it hit an unpopulated area. But we simply cannot count on luck, especially when we have it within our means to find menacing asteroids and correct their trajectories.
NASA is currently searching for (and has found) many asteroids and comets that cross Earth's path, but the deflection part of the task is difficult. We need to increase the budget of NASA so that it can carry out this mission.
We are the product of billions of years of evolution, and as far as we know, we are the only intelligent beings there is. We have a mandate to protect and preserve life on this planet, as well as our own. To do so will not only damn us to extinction, but could snuff out the existence of life itself in the Universe.
3)Inter-governmental agencies are not capable of fufilling the task of preserving life on Earth. We must expedite research and development at NASA to meet the task of combating climate change, pollution and asteroidal impacts, among other threats.
Currently, the UN is incapable of protecting the citizens of certain countries from extermination at the hands of other people. How can we trust that the international community will pull together to deal with existential problems of orders of magnitude more difficulty?
4)Even if international cooperation realize that it is a moral and ethical imperative to tackle such problems, we must give more funding to NASA. For one, NASA will be the major US governmental agency to deal with a problem like an asteroidal impact, so it will be funded more even in the case of international cooperation.
For another, not giving NASA enough funds now only stunts our ability to deal with problem and others. Waiting until we see the train coming down the tracks to find a way to derail it before impact is folly. We must find the coming train in the darkness of space and start working to derail it now.
5)There is no other life of any kind in the universe as far as we know. As the only agent of intelligence, we must ensure the survival of life. To do this not only requires protecting it, we must grant life safe harbor on other worlds.
We must scour our solar system for environments to bend to the will of life. We must push life further and further afield so that it can never again be hostage to mere chance.
This is a massive undertaking, we are only now unlocking the secrets of genetics or planetary eco-engineering. We must make haste to push the boundary of science in this direction so that we can take life whereever we see fit, we must show favor to God's most awesome creation - life - and extend it's reach and place it in an unassailable position.
We need to start that work now, by further funding NASA to work towards this goal, before the bright flame of genetic creativity and energy is extinguished by our own misdeeds or the turning of fortune.
God gave us brains and a mandate to protect his creation. It's time we do it, and NASA is in a unique position to be the seed spreader and protector of the future of that creation.
1)In Genesis, God revealed to humanity that they should, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Many other religions have similar beliefs as expressed in their holy texts, practices and beliefs. Even to the nonbeliever, this is an essential truth: through our endevours, industrious nature and hunger for resources, we have expanded and now hold the ultimate fate of the planet in our hands.
If we wish to avoid draining the life of our homeworld, we need to take care of it - this is an essential part of dominion over nature. But before you can take care of something, before you can fix a problem, you need to understand it. NASA is in an excellent position to do this through research and exploration.
Whether or not they are launching satellites to study the atmosphere, placing sensors on tectonic plate boundaries, or furthering our understanding of the particle physics that determine the climate, NASA first and foremost is giving us the knowledge we need to tackle many of the issues the Earth faces; be they pollution, global warming, the spread of invasives species and others.
We can see the writing on the wall - there are factors both inside and outside of our control that cause problems for life on Earth. We can see the writing, but we'll never decipher it without adequate budgets for research and innovative solutions. This is why NASA needs more funding, they are in a unique postition to figure out the problems and work to correct them.
2)Somewhere in the vast, unknowable void is an asteroid with a tatoo that reads, 'I pwn planets'. A cousin to this asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and countless others have rained hellfire and damnation on the defenseless creatures of our planet. It's only a matter of time before this asteroid pays us a visit and makes good on the claim scrawled in ink on it's rocky surface.
We know this has happened before, and it will happen again. Just over 100 years ago, a comet exploded over Tunguska, Russia and leveled hundreds of square miles of forest. The resulting fires turned night to day as far away as London as this nightmare from outer space paid death and destruction to a large part of the ecosystem where it hit.
On this chance happening, humanity was lucky that it hit an unpopulated area. But we simply cannot count on luck, especially when we have it within our means to find menacing asteroids and correct their trajectories.
NASA is currently searching for (and has found) many asteroids and comets that cross Earth's path, but the deflection part of the task is difficult. We need to increase the budget of NASA so that it can carry out this mission.
We are the product of billions of years of evolution, and as far as we know, we are the only intelligent beings there is. We have a mandate to protect and preserve life on this planet, as well as our own. To do so will not only damn us to extinction, but could snuff out the existence of life itself in the Universe.
3)Inter-governmental agencies are not capable of fufilling the task of preserving life on Earth. We must expedite research and development at NASA to meet the task of combating climate change, pollution and asteroidal impacts, among other threats.
Currently, the UN is incapable of protecting the citizens of certain countries from extermination at the hands of other people. How can we trust that the international community will pull together to deal with existential problems of orders of magnitude more difficulty?
4)Even if international cooperation realize that it is a moral and ethical imperative to tackle such problems, we must give more funding to NASA. For one, NASA will be the major US governmental agency to deal with a problem like an asteroidal impact, so it will be funded more even in the case of international cooperation.
For another, not giving NASA enough funds now only stunts our ability to deal with problem and others. Waiting until we see the train coming down the tracks to find a way to derail it before impact is folly. We must find the coming train in the darkness of space and start working to derail it now.
5)There is no other life of any kind in the universe as far as we know. As the only agent of intelligence, we must ensure the survival of life. To do this not only requires protecting it, we must grant life safe harbor on other worlds.
We must scour our solar system for environments to bend to the will of life. We must push life further and further afield so that it can never again be hostage to mere chance.
This is a massive undertaking, we are only now unlocking the secrets of genetics or planetary eco-engineering. We must make haste to push the boundary of science in this direction so that we can take life whereever we see fit, we must show favor to God's most awesome creation - life - and extend it's reach and place it in an unassailable position.
We need to start that work now, by further funding NASA to work towards this goal, before the bright flame of genetic creativity and energy is extinguished by our own misdeeds or the turning of fortune.
God gave us brains and a mandate to protect his creation. It's time we do it, and NASA is in a unique position to be the seed spreader and protector of the future of that creation.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I refute
for the following reasons:
1. There is already a lot of work being done by NASA and other agencies to locate and catalogue Near Earth Objects big enough to pose a risk, should they at some point intersect our orbit and smash into our planet. NASA has already located 80-90% of the largest such objects (They were mandated to do so by congress in 1998). Other countries and agencies are pursuing their own projects with similar goals. The large Synoptic Survey Telescope, a fully non-NASA related Earth-based telescope is in the process of of being designed and will be eventually built in Chile, for example.
From an ethical "Let's try to avoid human extinction events" standpoint, NASA and her partners and other non-NASA related agencies are doing quite a bit.
2. There is no reason to think that any extra budget increases given to NASA would go towards Spaceguard or any such related project; NASA has not asked for any money in this field; it is far more likely that the money would end up in the pockets of other projects instead.
3. Locating potential space hazards is one thing - devising a plan to intercept them and change their orbits is another. NASA would require Apollo-levels of funding to start developing ways that could be used to deflect a meteor heading towards Earth. We are literally talking hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars here. There is no way that any substantial amount of new money going to NASA today would end up in a project designed to figure out how to push an asteroid out of the way; that would involve building spacecraft, testing them, many a rendezvous with an asteroid or meteor, and so on. Steps have been slowly taken to be more ready for such an event (e.g. an asteroid rendezvous by NEAR about 10 years ago IIRC). That's the way to go forward - small steps, especially in this time of financial and economic uncertainty.
for the following reasons:
1. There is already a lot of work being done by NASA and other agencies to locate and catalogue Near Earth Objects big enough to pose a risk, should they at some point intersect our orbit and smash into our planet. NASA has already located 80-90% of the largest such objects (They were mandated to do so by congress in 1998). Other countries and agencies are pursuing their own projects with similar goals. The large Synoptic Survey Telescope, a fully non-NASA related Earth-based telescope is in the process of of being designed and will be eventually built in Chile, for example.
From an ethical "Let's try to avoid human extinction events" standpoint, NASA and her partners and other non-NASA related agencies are doing quite a bit.
2. There is no reason to think that any extra budget increases given to NASA would go towards Spaceguard or any such related project; NASA has not asked for any money in this field; it is far more likely that the money would end up in the pockets of other projects instead.
3. Locating potential space hazards is one thing - devising a plan to intercept them and change their orbits is another. NASA would require Apollo-levels of funding to start developing ways that could be used to deflect a meteor heading towards Earth. We are literally talking hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars here. There is no way that any substantial amount of new money going to NASA today would end up in a project designed to figure out how to push an asteroid out of the way; that would involve building spacecraft, testing them, many a rendezvous with an asteroid or meteor, and so on. Steps have been slowly taken to be more ready for such an event (e.g. an asteroid rendezvous by NEAR about 10 years ago IIRC). That's the way to go forward - small steps, especially in this time of financial and economic uncertainty.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
At point 3 (no quotes!)
1)Deflecting an asteroid need not be more difficult or more expensive than landing a man on the moon or even constructing a space station for numerous reasons. The first reason is that you need not send humans to do the job. Small robots can be launched as piggy backs on currently schedule launches. With lightweight ion thrusters, they will not have to be very big to do a decent job of scouting a threatening object. Taking this approach will be far less costly than sending manned missions because of the small scale, and can be done with off-the-shelf hardware. We aren't talking exotic new technologies here.
2)NASA is currently in the planning phases of sending out a manned mission to an asteroid for exploratory purposes. With adequate funding, the project could be accelerated and given the tools need to do the additional investigation required to determine a proper way to move an asteroid. We should do take this opportunity to research moving an asteroid because it is an essential skill we will need. Also:
3)Why not make some money if you're going to move or scout an asteroid? Pairing NASA's moving efforts with those of a company like Planetary Resources (the first company established with the goal of mining asteroids) leads to a win-win. Development costs of the mission can be shared, possibly even profits. Plus, such an effort will lead to an asteroid gold rush as other major players (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace) try and get in on the action. Taking this track not only has the benefits of saving the Earth, but it also could lead to a massive economic windfall. Why wait to deal with it if we could be the first nation to accomplish such a feat as moving an asteroid and push out our economic sphere of influence into space?
This largely negates the 'economic uncertainty' line of argument. It could be long-term investment in our economic future with big pay offs. Plus, we'd literally be doing the world a favor.
4)An asteroid, if found with enough lead time remaining, can be deflected with various low cost methods. A large (by square meters, not mass) solar reflector coupled with an ion thruster could do the job. It would be a low-mass foil projection used to direct and focus sunlight onto the asteroid. The heated area will eject material, over time, this will force the asteroid on another path. There are other simple, low cost methods to deal with the asteroid as well.
5)We have massive nuclear stockpiles. While this would not be an ideal solution (as theorized by scientists who study the problem), it could be much cheaper to place multiple mult-megaton nuclear warheads on the asteroid, enough to break it apart and vaporize enough of it that the resultant pieces are scattered or made small enough to not be capable of surviving reentry.
6)As for taking slow steps, this is folly. While we do know of many of the asteroids, we do not know them all, and we do not even have complete trajectories of the ones we do know. A swing past Jupiter is all it takes to deflect an asteroid in our direction. We shouldn't wait to begin developing technology that we will need just because there isn't an immediate threat that we know of. The threats are there and need to be dealt with.
1)Deflecting an asteroid need not be more difficult or more expensive than landing a man on the moon or even constructing a space station for numerous reasons. The first reason is that you need not send humans to do the job. Small robots can be launched as piggy backs on currently schedule launches. With lightweight ion thrusters, they will not have to be very big to do a decent job of scouting a threatening object. Taking this approach will be far less costly than sending manned missions because of the small scale, and can be done with off-the-shelf hardware. We aren't talking exotic new technologies here.
2)NASA is currently in the planning phases of sending out a manned mission to an asteroid for exploratory purposes. With adequate funding, the project could be accelerated and given the tools need to do the additional investigation required to determine a proper way to move an asteroid. We should do take this opportunity to research moving an asteroid because it is an essential skill we will need. Also:
3)Why not make some money if you're going to move or scout an asteroid? Pairing NASA's moving efforts with those of a company like Planetary Resources (the first company established with the goal of mining asteroids) leads to a win-win. Development costs of the mission can be shared, possibly even profits. Plus, such an effort will lead to an asteroid gold rush as other major players (Boeing, SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace) try and get in on the action. Taking this track not only has the benefits of saving the Earth, but it also could lead to a massive economic windfall. Why wait to deal with it if we could be the first nation to accomplish such a feat as moving an asteroid and push out our economic sphere of influence into space?
This largely negates the 'economic uncertainty' line of argument. It could be long-term investment in our economic future with big pay offs. Plus, we'd literally be doing the world a favor.
4)An asteroid, if found with enough lead time remaining, can be deflected with various low cost methods. A large (by square meters, not mass) solar reflector coupled with an ion thruster could do the job. It would be a low-mass foil projection used to direct and focus sunlight onto the asteroid. The heated area will eject material, over time, this will force the asteroid on another path. There are other simple, low cost methods to deal with the asteroid as well.
5)We have massive nuclear stockpiles. While this would not be an ideal solution (as theorized by scientists who study the problem), it could be much cheaper to place multiple mult-megaton nuclear warheads on the asteroid, enough to break it apart and vaporize enough of it that the resultant pieces are scattered or made small enough to not be capable of surviving reentry.
6)As for taking slow steps, this is folly. While we do know of many of the asteroids, we do not know them all, and we do not even have complete trajectories of the ones we do know. A swing past Jupiter is all it takes to deflect an asteroid in our direction. We shouldn't wait to begin developing technology that we will need just because there isn't an immediate threat that we know of. The threats are there and need to be dealt with.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
(hmm where'd I use a quote? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rule)
Refuting 1, 2, 4, and 6
1. You say that deflecting an asteroid shouldn't be more expensive than the moon landing or the construction of the International Space Station; You just listed the 2 most expensive human ventures in outer space ever, if we are to take the entire race to the moon as 1 project, which we should.
Figuring out how to deflect an asteroid is not that easy; It likely requires specialized spacecraft and many attempts at moving an asteroid. This has never been done before... not even with a tiny little rock floating out in space, let alone an asteroid with a 1km diameter.
A project to move an asteroid would begin small and have many iterations, culminating in a test to move a very large object. All of this is going to be incredibly expensive and it really shouldn't be a surprise that NASA hasn't started piggybacking any of this onto other projects; it would require a project of its own.
2. Humanity has made a lot of progress in terms of getting ready for an asteroid-induced extinction event. We are wayyy more ready than we were 20 years ago, while the probability of such a civilization-ending event is the same as it was 20 years ago, and as it will be 500 years from now.
Now is not the time to be throwing hundreds of millions at a venture like this.
Refuting 1, 2, 4, and 6
1. You say that deflecting an asteroid shouldn't be more expensive than the moon landing or the construction of the International Space Station; You just listed the 2 most expensive human ventures in outer space ever, if we are to take the entire race to the moon as 1 project, which we should.
Figuring out how to deflect an asteroid is not that easy; It likely requires specialized spacecraft and many attempts at moving an asteroid. This has never been done before... not even with a tiny little rock floating out in space, let alone an asteroid with a 1km diameter.
A project to move an asteroid would begin small and have many iterations, culminating in a test to move a very large object. All of this is going to be incredibly expensive and it really shouldn't be a surprise that NASA hasn't started piggybacking any of this onto other projects; it would require a project of its own.
Now is not the time to be throwing hundreds of millions at a venture like this.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
To your point:
1)Many of the essential parts of a deflection mission have been built. Things like the deep space network for communications, automated space craft, robotic manipulators, remote sensing platfors, they all exist. As do nuclear weapons, and solar sails (which are very similar to a solar reflector, actually they are the same but used differently).
2)None of the technologies I have described are especially exotic or expensive relative to other project, such as the Curiosity rover, the Hubble Space Telescope or even the Orion capsule.
3)Many of the necessary components could be absorbed into other ongoing projects. The ISS, for instance, is a space research outpost. Many of the demonstrations flights of necessary hardware could be done there. You wouldn't even have to necessarily allocate more money, just redirect it from other science projects. But I believe it would be best to allocate more money as the ISS currently does not perform many experiments and could accomodate many more.
In fact, the ISS is currently scheduled to be de-orbited around 2020. What a huge waste of money. If we were willing to reallocate or add additional funding for this crucial goal, we could help justify the $100 billion price tag and give it a reason to exist beyond 2020. Also, the Orion capsule and the planned asteroid rendevouz are one other excellent example of a chance to absorb a deflection/scouting mission into another program.
4)We have used satellites and impactors to impact asteroids. This provided useful data and would inform our future efforts. I'm saying this specifically to counter the line that this has never been done. It has, the difference is in the scale, not a fundamental leap in technology or methods.
1)Many of the essential parts of a deflection mission have been built. Things like the deep space network for communications, automated space craft, robotic manipulators, remote sensing platfors, they all exist. As do nuclear weapons, and solar sails (which are very similar to a solar reflector, actually they are the same but used differently).
2)None of the technologies I have described are especially exotic or expensive relative to other project, such as the Curiosity rover, the Hubble Space Telescope or even the Orion capsule.
3)Many of the necessary components could be absorbed into other ongoing projects. The ISS, for instance, is a space research outpost. Many of the demonstrations flights of necessary hardware could be done there. You wouldn't even have to necessarily allocate more money, just redirect it from other science projects. But I believe it would be best to allocate more money as the ISS currently does not perform many experiments and could accomodate many more.
In fact, the ISS is currently scheduled to be de-orbited around 2020. What a huge waste of money. If we were willing to reallocate or add additional funding for this crucial goal, we could help justify the $100 billion price tag and give it a reason to exist beyond 2020. Also, the Orion capsule and the planned asteroid rendevouz are one other excellent example of a chance to absorb a deflection/scouting mission into another program.
4)We have used satellites and impactors to impact asteroids. This provided useful data and would inform our future efforts. I'm saying this specifically to counter the line that this has never been done. It has, the difference is in the scale, not a fundamental leap in technology or methods.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I will refute 1.
1. Saying that the essential components of a deflection mission have been built would be like saying that you are ready to assemble a car just because you have built a stone wheel, a leather seat, a clutch, and have drawn a map.
The things you list give us know-how in certain areas that would be required for a project like this, but you are severely underestimating the scope the project would require, especially if the goal is to move an asteroid with a diameter of 1km.
2. Nuclear weapons can't be used in outer space as per some treaty or other. There are ways around that, but the question would be one of politics as well as money.
3. In the end it comes back to money, money, money, and loads of it. If it was as easy and cheap as you propose, NASA would be doing quite a bit more than they are. And even if they did get an increase in funding, such a project would likely be out of their reach. The best they can do is work on individual pieces and locating NEOs, as they have been doing. Like the new kids on the block said: step by step
1. Saying that the essential components of a deflection mission have been built would be like saying that you are ready to assemble a car just because you have built a stone wheel, a leather seat, a clutch, and have drawn a map.
The things you list give us know-how in certain areas that would be required for a project like this, but you are severely underestimating the scope the project would require, especially if the goal is to move an asteroid with a diameter of 1km.
2. Nuclear weapons can't be used in outer space as per some treaty or other. There are ways around that, but the question would be one of politics as well as money.
3. In the end it comes back to money, money, money, and loads of it. If it was as easy and cheap as you propose, NASA would be doing quite a bit more than they are. And even if they did get an increase in funding, such a project would likely be out of their reach. The best they can do is work on individual pieces and locating NEOs, as they have been doing. Like the new kids on the block said: step by step
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
To point 2)
1)A situation that will effect the world certainly warrants a re-examination of the Outer Space Weapons Ban treaty, or an outright exemption, for obvious reasons.
2)A re-examination of various outer space treaties is already underway in some circles. Currently, property rights and claims to outer space objects by private corporations are in dispute as the original treaties did not anticipate current developments (wrt Planetary Resources, etc). These discussions are already being had at some level, so it isn't improbable that this specific discussion could be had as well.
3)Nuclear weapons are cheap to use against an asteroid. Why? Because the US currently possesses ~8,000 of them, the Russian Federation ~10,000. You don't have to build more of them to bust an asteroid. You could just repurposes a fraction of the current total to do the job and have many left over for deterrant.
4)Using nuclear weapons in this way will decrease the chances of a nuclear war by eliminating some of the stockpiles, and by engeandering trust among the various nations that will work together to redraft treaties and come up with plans to deal with an asteroid.
1)A situation that will effect the world certainly warrants a re-examination of the Outer Space Weapons Ban treaty, or an outright exemption, for obvious reasons.
2)A re-examination of various outer space treaties is already underway in some circles. Currently, property rights and claims to outer space objects by private corporations are in dispute as the original treaties did not anticipate current developments (wrt Planetary Resources, etc). These discussions are already being had at some level, so it isn't improbable that this specific discussion could be had as well.
3)Nuclear weapons are cheap to use against an asteroid. Why? Because the US currently possesses ~8,000 of them, the Russian Federation ~10,000. You don't have to build more of them to bust an asteroid. You could just repurposes a fraction of the current total to do the job and have many left over for deterrant.
4)Using nuclear weapons in this way will decrease the chances of a nuclear war by eliminating some of the stockpiles, and by engeandering trust among the various nations that will work together to redraft treaties and come up with plans to deal with an asteroid.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Using nuclear weapons in space is not an easy proposition. It's not as easy as re-examining a treaty, launching a nuke into space, and watching things explode.
Money has to be spent examining every single thing that could go wrong. NASA already does this, right? With nuclear weapons involved they are going to have to have contingency plans for contingency plans for contingency plans, backups for backups for backups, every single potential base covered, not to mention one hell of a PR campaign. It's going to drive up costs by quite a bit.. It won't lead to a doubling of costs... You're looking at something many factors more expensive than that, and that's before we start talking about all the red tape such a project is bound to involve.
No, a much more sensible approach is needed; nuclear weapons should only be a last resort solution.
Money has to be spent examining every single thing that could go wrong. NASA already does this, right? With nuclear weapons involved they are going to have to have contingency plans for contingency plans for contingency plans, backups for backups for backups, every single potential base covered, not to mention one hell of a PR campaign. It's going to drive up costs by quite a bit.. It won't lead to a doubling of costs... You're looking at something many factors more expensive than that, and that's before we start talking about all the red tape such a project is bound to involve.
No, a much more sensible approach is needed; nuclear weapons should only be a last resort solution.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Substantiations for claim 2.
1. The American economy is in a lot of trouble right now; things are being slashed left and right and the federal budget is still not balanced. It needs more money coming in and less money going out - not the other way around.
2. NASA's budget is actually higher today than it was for most of the 70s, all of the 80s, and the late 90s, even if you keep inflation in mind (which you should, but it's beside the point). Why should we pick this particular time to increase NASA's budget? It's a bad time for a move like that.
My claim 2. said:
1. The American economy is in a lot of trouble right now; things are being slashed left and right and the federal budget is still not balanced. It needs more money coming in and less money going out - not the other way around.
2. NASA's budget is actually higher today than it was for most of the 70s, all of the 80s, and the late 90s, even if you keep inflation in mind (which you should, but it's beside the point). Why should we pick this particular time to increase NASA's budget? It's a bad time for a move like that.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Okay everyone, we are going to stop here for the night and resume again tomorrow.. with one change.
Instead of having a pre-determined block of time during which we post, we are going to leave it a bit more open than that - we'll post whenever we can, throughout the day.
I have posted my substantiations for claim 2 above so that hobbsyoyo can write his first rebuttal tomorrow, when he has time. I'm rather busy at work these days, but I'll respond when I can, and so on.
We are at about the halfway point of this debate and it's taking a lot longer than we initially anticipated.. we both have rather busy schedules so this change seems apt. We'll see how well it works tomorrow
Instead of having a pre-determined block of time during which we post, we are going to leave it a bit more open than that - we'll post whenever we can, throughout the day.
I have posted my substantiations for claim 2 above so that hobbsyoyo can write his first rebuttal tomorrow, when he has time. I'm rather busy at work these days, but I'll respond when I can, and so on.
We are at about the halfway point of this debate and it's taking a lot longer than we initially anticipated.. we both have rather busy schedules so this change seems apt. We'll see how well it works tomorrow
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
To your first point:
1)Why should we cut off a major source of technological and scientific advancement and national prestige off at the knees when we could easily cut other sources instead? We could raise the retirement age a few years for SS and Medicare (set the change at a future date to give people a time to adjust) or cut military spending to fund NASA more. There are many areas of the budget that could be trimmed back to support NASA, whose mission is essentail to the economic prosperity of our country through the new science and technology it creates.
2)Cutting NASA's budget or even leaving it flat will cause major problems of government and private sector layoffs, which will worsen, not better the budgetary problem as the affected can no longer pay taxes. Further, what is needed now is stimulus, if we want to grow the economy we need to spend more. Increasing NASA's budget now will help with this.
3)Not growing NASA's budget puts many programs in jeopardy. NASA is already clearly struggling to finance their programs as it is and they need more money to keep things rolling. If we don't increase the budget, or slash it, current projects will have to die. That is a massive source of government waste if there ever was one. And even if programs are facing cost overruns, spending the additional money to finish them or keep them afloat will help the economy by supporting more scientists, engineers and contracting firms.
This may seem wasteful - but it isn't really. The projects will advance our science and technology and understanding of the universe substantially. It will support the private sector and highly productive engineers and scientists. We should be looking for ways to keep people off welfare and companies from collapsing - spending additional money at NASA will do that and the money spent will go to the private sector as well through contracts and such.
Look at what happened with the original Aries program. It was never funded adequately from the beginning, even though it offered a major chance to increase American presence in space and opened new avenues of exploration. The program was largely cancelled and all of that effort and R&D went to mostly naught.
NASA's situation hasn't changed substantially since then. On top of their own projects, they have congressionally mandated projects like the Orion capsule and the Commercial Orbital Transport Service that need serious funding. They aren't recieving enough now to do all these things and if funding isn't increased appreciably, they are going to have to cut even more projects and lower their long term goals of scientific exploration and R&D substantially. This scenario will be as wasteful - if not more so - than the cancellation of the Aries program and will set back our goals in space a great deal.
4)Currently, through the Commercial Orbital Transport Service program, NASA is helping fund the major R&D needed to allow private companies to create their own space programs and providing a first customer for their services. Firms like SpaceX have used the program to fuel explosive growth and are striving to create an entirely new economic model of space development.
The major thing this program does now is that it will allow private firms to create their own programs and do what they will with it. SpaceX has already offered or made deals to fly exploratory satellites for Planetary Resources and orbital manufacturing and scientific modules for Bigelow Aerospace. They also have more ambitious long-term goals like providing transportation to Mars for colonization efforts (read Elon Musk's [SpaceX founder] statements on this for some insight on his long-term goals).
Though the government, through NASA, has played a major role in helping SpaceX get off the ground (no pun intended), now that they have done so, they are free to exploit commercial opportunities with the technologies they have developed. There are many commercial opportunities in space from tourism to orbital manufacturing and resource extraction that do not exist now and will not exist for a long time without the helping hand of the government to get things rolling.
In the long run, this is opening up the final frontier to be a major source of new revenues for the government through taxation and economic development that never existed before. NASA needs more funding to see this program through and to accellerate it's growth (which will help right now with the economy as the firms could grow more quickly) to allow more commercial enterprises to develop means to access space. Currently, the entry cost to do so is so high that it's nearly impossible to do so for most firms without government help.
This largely echos the airmail service previously run by the government. That service helped aircraft firms develop the technology and techniques to create viable air transport services - a large sector of our economy that didn't exist before the airmail service. We can create an entire new sector of the economy through COTS and other programs - NASA just needs enough funding to see it through.
Such an investment will more than pay for itself and bring in more money to the treasurey in the long run and even help grow the private space sector right now. Failure to increase funding puts all of this in jeopardy and will result in waste as programs are cancelled and the nascent new industries and companies collapse without the crucial first round of government funding.
1)Why should we cut off a major source of technological and scientific advancement and national prestige off at the knees when we could easily cut other sources instead? We could raise the retirement age a few years for SS and Medicare (set the change at a future date to give people a time to adjust) or cut military spending to fund NASA more. There are many areas of the budget that could be trimmed back to support NASA, whose mission is essentail to the economic prosperity of our country through the new science and technology it creates.
2)Cutting NASA's budget or even leaving it flat will cause major problems of government and private sector layoffs, which will worsen, not better the budgetary problem as the affected can no longer pay taxes. Further, what is needed now is stimulus, if we want to grow the economy we need to spend more. Increasing NASA's budget now will help with this.
3)Not growing NASA's budget puts many programs in jeopardy. NASA is already clearly struggling to finance their programs as it is and they need more money to keep things rolling. If we don't increase the budget, or slash it, current projects will have to die. That is a massive source of government waste if there ever was one. And even if programs are facing cost overruns, spending the additional money to finish them or keep them afloat will help the economy by supporting more scientists, engineers and contracting firms.
This may seem wasteful - but it isn't really. The projects will advance our science and technology and understanding of the universe substantially. It will support the private sector and highly productive engineers and scientists. We should be looking for ways to keep people off welfare and companies from collapsing - spending additional money at NASA will do that and the money spent will go to the private sector as well through contracts and such.
Look at what happened with the original Aries program. It was never funded adequately from the beginning, even though it offered a major chance to increase American presence in space and opened new avenues of exploration. The program was largely cancelled and all of that effort and R&D went to mostly naught.
NASA's situation hasn't changed substantially since then. On top of their own projects, they have congressionally mandated projects like the Orion capsule and the Commercial Orbital Transport Service that need serious funding. They aren't recieving enough now to do all these things and if funding isn't increased appreciably, they are going to have to cut even more projects and lower their long term goals of scientific exploration and R&D substantially. This scenario will be as wasteful - if not more so - than the cancellation of the Aries program and will set back our goals in space a great deal.
4)Currently, through the Commercial Orbital Transport Service program, NASA is helping fund the major R&D needed to allow private companies to create their own space programs and providing a first customer for their services. Firms like SpaceX have used the program to fuel explosive growth and are striving to create an entirely new economic model of space development.
The major thing this program does now is that it will allow private firms to create their own programs and do what they will with it. SpaceX has already offered or made deals to fly exploratory satellites for Planetary Resources and orbital manufacturing and scientific modules for Bigelow Aerospace. They also have more ambitious long-term goals like providing transportation to Mars for colonization efforts (read Elon Musk's [SpaceX founder] statements on this for some insight on his long-term goals).
Though the government, through NASA, has played a major role in helping SpaceX get off the ground (no pun intended), now that they have done so, they are free to exploit commercial opportunities with the technologies they have developed. There are many commercial opportunities in space from tourism to orbital manufacturing and resource extraction that do not exist now and will not exist for a long time without the helping hand of the government to get things rolling.
In the long run, this is opening up the final frontier to be a major source of new revenues for the government through taxation and economic development that never existed before. NASA needs more funding to see this program through and to accellerate it's growth (which will help right now with the economy as the firms could grow more quickly) to allow more commercial enterprises to develop means to access space. Currently, the entry cost to do so is so high that it's nearly impossible to do so for most firms without government help.
This largely echos the airmail service previously run by the government. That service helped aircraft firms develop the technology and techniques to create viable air transport services - a large sector of our economy that didn't exist before the airmail service. We can create an entire new sector of the economy through COTS and other programs - NASA just needs enough funding to see it through.
Such an investment will more than pay for itself and bring in more money to the treasurey in the long run and even help grow the private space sector right now. Failure to increase funding puts all of this in jeopardy and will result in waste as programs are cancelled and the nascent new industries and companies collapse without the crucial first round of government funding.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
My rebuttal is to all of your points above.
The type of economic stimulus and technological advancement you seek with extra funding is a long-term project, lasting years, if not decades.
This is just not a good time to be embarking on such major increases in funding! Sure, at some point in the near future, when the financial crisis has blown over, we can increase funding to NASA for all of the reasons you give. It will eventually lead to new technologies and a negligible increase in economic activity, and we can pat ourselves on our backs for being job & technology creators..
For the time being it would be prudent to leave NASA's funding untouched. Like I said previously, comparing NASA's present level of funding to what it used to be in the past does not paint a "uh oh, NASA's being gutted" picture at all. Let them play with what they're used to for now, and we can talk about major increases once the economy is back on track. It's the only sensible thing to do.
The type of economic stimulus and technological advancement you seek with extra funding is a long-term project, lasting years, if not decades.
This is just not a good time to be embarking on such major increases in funding! Sure, at some point in the near future, when the financial crisis has blown over, we can increase funding to NASA for all of the reasons you give. It will eventually lead to new technologies and a negligible increase in economic activity, and we can pat ourselves on our backs for being job & technology creators..
For the time being it would be prudent to leave NASA's funding untouched. Like I said previously, comparing NASA's present level of funding to what it used to be in the past does not paint a "uh oh, NASA's being gutted" picture at all. Let them play with what they're used to for now, and we can talk about major increases once the economy is back on track. It's the only sensible thing to do.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
You don't fully refute any of the points I laid out in your response, but without moderation and in interest of keeping the ball rolling, I will lay that aside to respond. But I would like to point out the parts you didn't refute before countering you directly:
1)On my first point, you said nothing about trimming other portions of the budget to secure funding of NASA, which was a primary thrust of that point.
2)You didn't address how cutting or leaving NASA funding flat could jeoperdize the economy by putting engineers, scientists and firms out of work from my second point.
3)You didn't address how leaving NASA funding flat or cutting it will put current programs in serious jeopardy, which in turn will cause unemployement as outlined above (this relates to my third point).
4)You completely downplayed the airmail service type of government sponsoring that the COTS program plays in the private space sector. In fact, you pretty much ignore it altogether with your last post (my forth point). This is an ongoing program with benefits to the economy and potential for growth thereof right now, not at some point in the future.
To respond directly to your point:
The current estimates of the value of a single, typical nickel-iron asteroid runs in the range of trillions of dollars. I hardly call the exploitation of such a resource a 'negligable increase in economic activity'.
The timescale that this will play out in, if we believe the people who run SpaceX, Planetary Resources and Bigelow Aerospace, is on the order of a decade or two. But that is just to accomplish certain big projects, like mining an asteroid, supplying a Martian colony or launching major orbital manufacturing bases or research outposts. But just because accomplishing those goals will take time, it doesn't follow that nothing will come of these ventures in the mean time.
The private space sector will expand, exponentially, as new technologies are pushed into the market and new players seek a piece of the pie. New ventures will be established that will contribute great sums to our economy before we ever land on an asteroid. You also can't downplay the impact that these companies have as they hire workers and expand operations to work toward biggers goals right now.
Your major point is that nothing will be harmed if we leave NASA funding flat. I have thoroughly refuted this by pointing out the potential cuts to programs that the current budgetary climate will bring about. Our lofties goals - reaching further into space with Orion and privatizing space exploration and exploitation- such as they are, are in jeopardy.
Follow the trends of NASA funding shortfalls (and the current situation is a shortfall as not enough funds are allocated to fund current projects and Congressionally mandated ones) and see how many major projects and endevours have been forced to fold. If we follow along this path, engineers are going to be put out of work and an entire industry will be depressed, as it was in the wake of cancellation of Apollo. This would be a disaster for economic recovery that is in such a fragile state right now. We can afford to borrow more money to keep an industry healthy, we cannot afford worse unemployment and the drastic fall in revenue and raise in benefits paid out that this will bring upon us.
Further, an entire new sector of the economy that is just now jelling will be forfeited - we will lose out on that future growth and cede that sector to foreign operations.
1)On my first point, you said nothing about trimming other portions of the budget to secure funding of NASA, which was a primary thrust of that point.
2)You didn't address how cutting or leaving NASA funding flat could jeoperdize the economy by putting engineers, scientists and firms out of work from my second point.
3)You didn't address how leaving NASA funding flat or cutting it will put current programs in serious jeopardy, which in turn will cause unemployement as outlined above (this relates to my third point).
4)You completely downplayed the airmail service type of government sponsoring that the COTS program plays in the private space sector. In fact, you pretty much ignore it altogether with your last post (my forth point). This is an ongoing program with benefits to the economy and potential for growth thereof right now, not at some point in the future.
To respond directly to your point:
The current estimates of the value of a single, typical nickel-iron asteroid runs in the range of trillions of dollars. I hardly call the exploitation of such a resource a 'negligable increase in economic activity'.
The timescale that this will play out in, if we believe the people who run SpaceX, Planetary Resources and Bigelow Aerospace, is on the order of a decade or two. But that is just to accomplish certain big projects, like mining an asteroid, supplying a Martian colony or launching major orbital manufacturing bases or research outposts. But just because accomplishing those goals will take time, it doesn't follow that nothing will come of these ventures in the mean time.
The private space sector will expand, exponentially, as new technologies are pushed into the market and new players seek a piece of the pie. New ventures will be established that will contribute great sums to our economy before we ever land on an asteroid. You also can't downplay the impact that these companies have as they hire workers and expand operations to work toward biggers goals right now.
Your major point is that nothing will be harmed if we leave NASA funding flat. I have thoroughly refuted this by pointing out the potential cuts to programs that the current budgetary climate will bring about. Our lofties goals - reaching further into space with Orion and privatizing space exploration and exploitation- such as they are, are in jeopardy.
Follow the trends of NASA funding shortfalls (and the current situation is a shortfall as not enough funds are allocated to fund current projects and Congressionally mandated ones) and see how many major projects and endevours have been forced to fold. If we follow along this path, engineers are going to be put out of work and an entire industry will be depressed, as it was in the wake of cancellation of Apollo. This would be a disaster for economic recovery that is in such a fragile state right now. We can afford to borrow more money to keep an industry healthy, we cannot afford worse unemployment and the drastic fall in revenue and raise in benefits paid out that this will bring upon us.
Further, an entire new sector of the economy that is just now jelling will be forfeited - we will lose out on that future growth and cede that sector to foreign operations.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
(The way I understand the rules, if I'm refuting multiple points, I can only use 1 point. I think my point sufficiently refutes the main gist of all your points, even if I didn't touch on all your sub-points.. I was really unable to - I would have had to make multiple points to do that and that's not allowed. If we're not on the same page in this regard send me a pm! I think you want me to be a bit more detailed in terms of what I am attacking though, and that *does* make sense..
I find it somewhat limiting to see you make 5 points and then me being left unable to refute them 1 by 1, instead being forced to refute just 1.. That way n-1 points you made are left unrefuted and the peanut gallery might take that as a sign from me that I concede those points, which I most definitely do not)
Back to your point 1.
1. You talk about the cutting off a major source of technological advancement, when a cutting of NASA's budget is not under consideration at all. While keeping NASA's funding flat will probably lead to some sacrifices, the effects will not be as major as you propose.
2. National prestige is irrelevant wrt my initial point about economic reality
3. Diverting money that doesn't exist to NASA is not really an option; it has to come from somewhere and if anything is cut it is unlikely to be diverted to a low-priority budget such as NASA's. You say that NASA is vital to the country, but things like the military and medicare budgets being cut in favour of NASA aren't really very realistic politically in this time of financial uncertainty.
4. There are other organizations, scientific in nature or not, who will be looking for extra funding, should any become available. Everybody is fighting for scraps - Why single out NASA and kick everyone else back into the gutter? As important as space exploration is, there are other, much more important programs that could also use extra funding.
I find it somewhat limiting to see you make 5 points and then me being left unable to refute them 1 by 1, instead being forced to refute just 1.. That way n-1 points you made are left unrefuted and the peanut gallery might take that as a sign from me that I concede those points, which I most definitely do not)
Back to your point 1.
1. You talk about the cutting off a major source of technological advancement, when a cutting of NASA's budget is not under consideration at all. While keeping NASA's funding flat will probably lead to some sacrifices, the effects will not be as major as you propose.
2. National prestige is irrelevant wrt my initial point about economic reality
3. Diverting money that doesn't exist to NASA is not really an option; it has to come from somewhere and if anything is cut it is unlikely to be diverted to a low-priority budget such as NASA's. You say that NASA is vital to the country, but things like the military and medicare budgets being cut in favour of NASA aren't really very realistic politically in this time of financial uncertainty.
4. There are other organizations, scientific in nature or not, who will be looking for extra funding, should any become available. Everybody is fighting for scraps - Why single out NASA and kick everyone else back into the gutter? As important as space exploration is, there are other, much more important programs that could also use extra funding.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
That was the point of the format, that you can't refute every point, only one. Unless you manage to knock down multiples completely at once, which you have done before. In this instance, you didn't refute them completely, only partially. I laid out the parts you didn't refute as we don't have moderation to make the call. I PM'd you about this but didn't hear back. I thought what I did (instead of asking you to retract your claim and rework it) was equitable. Also note, that I have not been able to refute a great deal many of your points made up till now. I haven't been able to lump them together and refute them all completely with one point as you have done to me a few times. This doesn't mean I cede the points I don't contest - the rules just state we can't rebuttal every point as then we'd be at it forever, and for a few other reasons. Plus, if you think that not refuting every point somehow puts me ahead, look at it this way: you've refuted more points of mine through complete double and multiple rebutalls, something I haven't pulled off yet. Hell, even mentioning this puts me at further disadvantage. But, I want to be equitable and I'm mindful we're the first trying this out, so we might as well talk about it openly. And, well, hopefully the peanut gallery are taking our points and claims as a whole on their merits and aren't simply counting who has refutted the most. Rather, it should be who made better arguments, who refuted best that should win.
To your second point:
1)National prestige is essential to economic reality.
National prestige is what draws in the best students, the best entrepreneurs, the brightest minds and hardest workers to our borders. National prestige is like the center of gravity for our national economy that pulls in all of these things and more for the United States. The space program provides a huge component to this: think of how many people across the planet watched breathlessly as Neil Armstrong (RIP) stepped out of a beautifully engineered marvel of technology into the harshest, most uninhabitable environment imagineable. We are still riding the coatails of that endevour, it's been a long time since we pulled off that feat, but it still pays dividends in the seething tides of humanity that grace our shores, hoping to set up shop in the land of opportunity, the country that can extend its presence to the domain forever before reserved for God.
2)National prestige plays a huge part in our ability to set favorable trade terms and develop economic and political ties to other nations. These help our economy in a huge, tangible way. Imagine the world without free trade, the WTO or even the UN to set some ground rules. Our national prestige helped make these things a reality.
3)Our national prestige extends to the realm of space, and will allow us to help rewrite rules to allow the exploitation of the resources and vast economic potential of the final frontier. If we don't have a credible space program (and I posit that the present funding situation will lead to exactly this), we lose that prestige, that vital edge over our economic competitors. We should not, cannot cede this highest of grounds to rival nations because we aren't willing to finance such a vital endevour.
To your second point:
1)National prestige is essential to economic reality.
National prestige is what draws in the best students, the best entrepreneurs, the brightest minds and hardest workers to our borders. National prestige is like the center of gravity for our national economy that pulls in all of these things and more for the United States. The space program provides a huge component to this: think of how many people across the planet watched breathlessly as Neil Armstrong (RIP) stepped out of a beautifully engineered marvel of technology into the harshest, most uninhabitable environment imagineable. We are still riding the coatails of that endevour, it's been a long time since we pulled off that feat, but it still pays dividends in the seething tides of humanity that grace our shores, hoping to set up shop in the land of opportunity, the country that can extend its presence to the domain forever before reserved for God.
2)National prestige plays a huge part in our ability to set favorable trade terms and develop economic and political ties to other nations. These help our economy in a huge, tangible way. Imagine the world without free trade, the WTO or even the UN to set some ground rules. Our national prestige helped make these things a reality.
3)Our national prestige extends to the realm of space, and will allow us to help rewrite rules to allow the exploitation of the resources and vast economic potential of the final frontier. If we don't have a credible space program (and I posit that the present funding situation will lead to exactly this), we lose that prestige, that vital edge over our economic competitors. We should not, cannot cede this highest of grounds to rival nations because we aren't willing to finance such a vital endevour.
- Status
Similar threads
