The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Scripturient
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Scripturient
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 91513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

With all the funds in Nasa and development of the rockets, I think space exploration should be shut down as we went on Mars and collected what data we could, there is no life on it anyway. We went to the moon, few resources acquired there as well. Apart from launching satellites for GPS and bolstering communication networks, space travel should be shut down. After all, we saw through the telescope that there is no life for at least a few galaxies, why waste all that money to travel to planets in our solar system?
Scripturient

Con

I'd like to accept this debate, thank you.
1.)
What you have here is an extension of an argument from ignorance.
"We have not found any usable resources on nearby planets- Therefore we will not find any if we explore further."
This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies.
2.)
"we saw through the telescope that there is no life for at least a few galaxies, why waste all that money to travel to planets in our solar system?"
Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies." A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life.
3.)
Finally, why would other life in the universe be the only merit space travel could gain? As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further. Even if we are alone in the universe, it doesn't make sense not to explore the area around us.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

"This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies."
Our probes and shuttles haven't discovered anything useful from Mars to Pluto.
"Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies." A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life."
Okay fine, how about limiting it to nearby galaxies? Or our own galaxy? Certianly we can find if there is life with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories, why waste the resources for traveling?
"As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further"
With the billions already invested in space travel, I don't think I am finding some diamons at saturn any time sooner. I doubt there is any resource from mars to pluto that can help us make profit rather than lose all our invested money.
Scripturient

Con

"Our probes and shuttles haven't discovered anything useful from Mars to Pluto."
Firstly, our technology is insufficiently advanced to fully explore many of the planets farther away from us than Mars. Despite this, we've even found life-hospitable environments near us- For instance, the oceans on Saturn's moon Enceladus. In addition, many habitable exoplanets have been discovered (in part, by the Voyager) and could contain life.
"How about limiting it to nearby galaxies? to our own galaxy?"
I don't appreciate you changing the parameters of the debate here, but that's not the real issue. Even if we only look for planets to profit from in our own galaxy (which we have by no means indexed fully, by the way) that is still space travel. Halting all space-based space research right now and letting our shuttles rust in their hangars will bring no profit at all, and certainly no new discoveries.
"..with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories"
Our observatories on Earth are remarkably clouded by the atmosphere and ozone layer. The only way to get clear, unadulterated picture of the rest of our galaxy is to send out more probes and telescopes. Although Hubble is a valuable tool, it can by no means capture a complete picture of our galaxy.
"I doubt there is a resource from mars to Pluto"
Perhaps there may not be a perfect deposit of a needed resource from Mars to Pluto, however, many extrasolar planets have useful resources. What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond? Many planets have valuable minerals that are extremely rare on Earth, thus allowing humans to discover new applications for them.

Because humans are despoiling the Earth at such a prodigious rate, we must seek habitation elsewhere in order to continue our species. Therefore, extrasolar planet exploration is absolutely necessary, and the first step to that is intrasolar planet exploration.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

"Our observatories on Earth are remarkably clouded by the atmosphere and ozone layer. The only way to get clear, unadulterated picture of the rest of our galaxy is to send out more probes and telescopes. Although Hubble is a valuable tool, it can by no means capture a complete picture of our galaxy."
Well then a telescope on the moon. I said to shut down space travel from mars to pluto, but development of a moon base is okay as it has lower distance and therefore lesser cost.
"What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond?"
Is it even in this galaxy? It certainly must not be in the stretch from mars to pluto.
All my argument is that instead of jumping off in space randomly and wasting precious amounts of fuel, we must look through our telescopes and previous results to determine whether it is useful to undertake the journey. And currently, I doubt that space exploration is useful. All that money could have nearly ended poverty or bolstered energy production. There are many better uses of money than space exploration.
Good luck to con, was a good debate.
Scripturient

Con

However, you didn't say "Let's shut down space travel from Mars to Pluto." Exploring our own solar system is the way we will gain the skills, data, and technology needed to explore beyond the solar system. Halting space exploration at this crucial stage will lock us out of the rest of the universe, forever.
"Well then a telescope on the moon."
Creating, maintaining, staffing, and maintaining a signal with a telescope on the moon would be extremely expensive. In addition, a telescope does not provide the same range of analytical tools that a hands-on rover or even human team does. Finally, a telescope orbiting the Earth cannot take the same pictures that launched telescopes, such as Voyager, can.

I would also like to note that Pro dropped my argument about alternate human habitation.

In conclusion, space travel is necessary because of the resources in our universe that we can discover, the scientific advances it propagates, and the need for alternate habitation for human life. The costs sustained in exploring our universe are necessary, even beneficiary, in that they will help the whole of humanity. We must explore for the sake of science, curiosity, and the human experience. If we do not bring ourselves to the galaxy, the galaxy will bring itself to us.

Thank you for the debate, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mark_V 1 year ago
Mark_V
Your diamonds are on Neptune and Uranus, moron. Their atmospheric composition and pressures are ideal environments for the formation of the precious stones
.
Posted by Mark_V 1 year ago
Mark_V
PS We have not sent any shuttles to Mars or Pluto.
Posted by BraxtonC 1 year ago
BraxtonC
Ya'll need to learn what a "galaxy" is.
Posted by Mark_V 1 year ago
Mark_V
planet*
Posted by Mark_V 1 year ago
Mark_V
I choked when I read this. No life for at least a few galaxies away? WTF!? NASA just recently discovered Kepler 186F, a planet within the "godly locks" zone and with a mass similar to our own planets. Whats more, using spectroscopy, we determined it has an atmosphere, with oxygen and nitrogen. Due to the distance, we cannot see its surface, but our current readings are hopeful. And, Its in OUR OWN galaxy, the Milky way. And saying that there are no resources worth the trip, I say BS to that to. One asteroid has enough raw materials and precious metals could be worth about 1 trillion dollars a piece, and there is a BOATLOAD of them out there. The concentration of rare earth metals in one is so high, if we began to mine them, the price of gold and silver would fall dramatically due to the amount in supply. So tell me again how space travel is a waste of money? At our rate of population expansion and resource consumption, we simply cannot continue to rely on our own resources here. We need to expand, and we need to do it now. Did you know that if everyone lived like we do here in the US, it would take 6 EARTHS to supply our current population?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
lord_megatronScripturientTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Conduct even. 2. Spelling and grammar fairly even. 3. Pro tended to change his original position. Evidence: http://prntscr.com/b9ai2f . Con effectively used this against Pro. Evidence: http://prntscr.com/b9aib6 , http://prntscr.com/b9aj1s . Also Con, he actually did say this: http://prntscr.com/b9ale8 . He had placed it in the debate's title though. However, he didn't assume this position in round 1, his position in round 1 is virtually different from the title's position. Pro refers to "space exploration" in a general manner (Evidence:http://prntscr.com/b9am36) , instead of stating it as he had in the title. Arguably, the title is not a component of a debate, so as the voter, I will disregard Pro's plea that this was his actual position in the argument. Therefore, mainly because Pro failed to support his original position while Con did so successfully for his own, Con receives points for convincing arguments. 4. Neither side used sources to back up their claims.