The Instigator
Sound_Reason
Pro (for)
The Contender
Dabate101
Con (against)

Funding to Nasa Should be Increased in Order to Stimulate the Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dabate101 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 95780
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Sound_Reason

Pro

First Round Acceptance Only.
No new arguments last round, or participant will be disqualified.
No trolling.
Watch your profanity.
Looking forward to an enlightening debate.
Dabate101

Con

Argument: Spending millions in tax money on unneeded and often unproductive National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) missions is ridiculous. Funding NASA siphons money from other worthwhile, terrestrial programs such as helping the nation's poor. While NASA tries to sell its missions as patriotic endeavors, America must realize that it needs to help itself through hard economic times before investing in theoretical tomorrows.
Good sense is a terrestrial phenomenon, as the expression "down to earth" suggests. Outer space, on the other hand, provides metaphors of madness.

"Lunacy" originates from lunar, or the idea that the moon's gravitational pull adversely affects the brain. That perhaps explains the insanity that typifies American space policy.

Forget giant leaps for mankind, NASA is a machine for spending money. That fact has been driven home by the ignominious failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a $278 million package which blasted off from Vandenberg air force base on Tuesday and promptly crashed into the Pacific. The satellite, we were told, would advance the study of global warming. But NASA isn't interested in global warming; it simply realises that wearing green is a way to get government money.

While most Americans have moved on, NASA is stuck in the 1960s. That explains the desire to go to Mars, an aspiration given the seal of presidential approval in 2004. Bush's project, priced at $400 billion, was inspired by his desire to stay ahead of the Chinese in the new space race. Just as in the 1960s, the ability to make shallow gestures in space is still assumed to be an indicator of a nation's virility. During a recent radio programme, a NASA astronaut asked me how the American people might react if the next man on the moon were Chinese. I replied with a question: "why are Americans so insecure?" If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it."

The time has come to pull the plug on meaningless gestures in space.

Thank you...

P.S. i don't agree with this viewpoint I'm just having fun:) (don't use this fact in you rebuttal, Thanks)
Debate Round No. 1
Sound_Reason

Pro

First of all I stated that first round was acceptance only, but I guess that's fine, seeing as It gives me material to work with.

In your argument you stated the following, "Spending millions in tax money on unneeded and often unproductive National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) missions is ridiculous". While I admit NASA often spends money on needlessly expensive projects and that is something that needs to be fixed, on the whole NASA has benefited the modern world with the majority of its endeavors.

My first argument is one that revolves around technology. The Cold War is so often associated with a military stalemate between the Soviet Union and the United States. When I think of the Cold War I think of the Space Race. While it was a time for rapid growth in human achievement, it also marked one of the most rapid progressions in the development of technology. NASA itself pioneered and field tested some of the tech that is now present in almost all modern day communication and electronics, such as the laptop and telecommunication. While the laptop was not a Cold War invention, it is based off the SPOC, or the Shuttle Portable Onboard Computer, which was present during NASA's shuttle program and debuted in 1983. Modern computer components were tested in the Apollo program, such as some of the first silicon chips were tested in the AGC, or the Apollo Guidance Computer. The key component of the AGC was the integrated circuit, invented in 1958, but was first introduced into a specific role by NASA. Another example of revolutionary technology being pioneered by NASA is the NASTRAN, or the NASA Structural Analysis Program, and is one of the basic elements in modern day engineering.

How does this impact the economy though? In order for these technologies to make it into the public setting, NASA handed over many of these technologies to the Private Sector, which put them into production. The Private Sector is key to economic growth, something we desperately need to fix the our current economic sitting. To be frank our economy is not growing as fast as it needs to be. Most recent reports place our GDP growth as just 0.7%, nowhere near what is sometimes referred to as 'escape velocity' in order to jump start growth. In many ways our economy is looking similar to if not worse than the FY of 2015. The US has also been engulfed in a seven year period of nearly 0% interest rates, and with 3.7 trillion dollars worth of money printed, inflation is getting worse. In addition, 6 trillion dollars have been piled onto the public debt, with no sign of letting up. Unemployment is at 5%, and while this is better than 2008, the real numbers are much higher. The number only accounts for people actively seeking work, and many have dropped out of the labor force altogether due to shrinking wages and rising taxes. Frankly, the recovery from the 2008 Recession has been much to slow, and the Private Sector is still hurting.

In order to fix this I propose funding be diverted to NASA, but NASA in return needs to PRIORITIZE on beneficial endeavors, such as Mars and the asteroid Belt, along with improving satellite technology.

You also state, quote, "During a recent radio programme, a NASA astronaut asked me how the American people might react if the next man on the moon were Chinese. I replied with a question: "why are Americans so insecure?" If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it."' What I am most curious about here is the notion of the moon being worthless. In truth, it is entirely the opposite. Helium-3, an isotope of Helium, is embedded in the regolith on the moon, and is proposed to be a solution to the energy crisis on Earth. While it is limited as a resource, it would be a stepping stone. Asteroids alone can be worth up to 95.8 trillion dollars in mineral and metal wealth, such as 241 Germania. This well outweighs the cost of a such mission to get there in the first place, and could spawn a multi billion, even multi trillion, dollar industry in its wake.

In essence, NASA provides innovation and new technology to the private sector through projects, which in turn can stimulate economic growth, and there are resources worth trillions for the taking drifting in the solar system, which could also start an economic period of prosperity. While this alone cannot fix the economy, it is a good place to start.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sound_Reason 11 months ago
Sound_Reason
Lol, I never said raise taxes, I said divert funds away from social programs. I am conservative in my views, and I oppose larger government and higher taxes, but I also see the benefit in science in technology. Our military is the same way. Some of the most important technological feats have come from the military, I propose the same is true with NASA. The difference between NASA and social programs is one puts considerably less back into the economy, and one could, theoretically with the right application, put drastically more in. You should read what I say before making assumptions.
Posted by Dabate101 11 months ago
Dabate101
That is the exact mindset of Hillary Clinton (a lier). She proposes we raise taxes to benefit government agencies or ideas, not NASA, but things like The Affordable Care Act, or Socialistic ideas to provide for everyone. That is the exact idea that will destroy America.
Posted by Sound_Reason 11 months ago
Sound_Reason
Its a government program that can also give back to the economy, unlike the majority of its companions.
Posted by TheBenC 11 months ago
TheBenC
Putting more money into a government program while taking more money from everyone who pays taxes...that is your plan? No, not going to work.
Posted by Dabate101 11 months ago
Dabate101
Im a mormon so i think ur good:)
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.