The Instigator
lin0913
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TruthOne
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The international community should ban nuclear-powered spacecraft.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 43024
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

lin0913

Con

First round is acceptance.
Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals).
Third round is constructive and rebuttals.
Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments).
Fifth round is summary and impact weighing.

Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework.

Thanks, and good luck!

-Lulu

P.S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
TruthOne

Pro

No,Nuclear Power powered spacecraft should not be banned it can only be controlled because till now except nuclear power there is no fuel in the Earth which can produce a huge amount of energy as required for a spacecraft instantly.Banning this will only make our way very much slower to reveal about ourselves,Universe and many things unknown and this will might happen that because of Nuclear-powered spacecraft we may get another source of energy or a new planet for us.
Debate Round No. 1
lin0913

Con

Thanks to my opponent for accepting, I'm looking forward to debating!

My 2 contentions are:

P1: Nuclear-powered spacecraft is too dangerous.
P2: Nuclear-powered spacecraft is too expensive & unfeasible.

Nuclear spacecraft is defined as: Most commonly powered with the radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or the RTG. This is the equivalent of a Plutonium battery. NASA states that currently, 74% of all nuclear spacecraft use the RTG.

P1: Nuclear-powered spacecraft is too dangerous.
Plutonium is the primary ingredient used to power most spacecraft systems today. It is not only very dangerous on account of it being highly radioactive, but it"s also extremely toxic. We simply can"t afford enormous environmental damage & the threat to human life from plutonium radiation, which nuclear-powered spacecraft accidents can cause. Although the idea of furthering space exploration is a nice prospect, the risks are just too high.
NASA:
Plutonium released to the environment today will stick around for the next 1/2 a million years.
Even worse is that plutonium is one of the most poisonous substances; doses of just one millionth of a gram have large amounts of radiation & is difficult to contain.
Judge, if one millionth of a gram of plutonium can cause so much harm, what would happen when pounds of it gets dispersed from the radio-isotope thermal generator, or RTG spacecraft? This is exactly what happened when SNAP 9A crashed into Earth in 1964. Luckily, it was over the Indian Ocean & not Los Angeles! NASA says that 74% of all nuclear spacecraft use plutonium! The fact is that plutonium is extremely harmful.
Envir. Protection Agency:
Plutonium is breathed in through the lungs, which almost 98% of the time cause harmful side effects like mutant cells & DNA transformation & serious health effects like lung cancer.
Studies by the Univ. of Berkeley linked the accidents of the SNAP 9A & 1978 Kosmos 954 to an increase in global lung cancer.
Judge, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that what goes up can sometimes come down too. Unfortunately, in the case o/nuclear spacecraft, when they come down, they come down w/all that cancer causing plutonium!

P2: Nuclear-powered spacecraft is too expensive & unfeasible.
The dangers that come from an RTG have made the prospect of a nuclear spacecraft reentering Earth's atmosphere & scattering radioactive material over a wide area extremely risky.
Washington Post:
The Cassini spacecraft in 1998 carried 35x more plutonium than the SNAP 9A, which crashed in 1964. If the Cassini destructed, the radioactivity would have killed 5 billion people in just one day.
About 60 nuclear spacecrafts have been launched & there"s been already 28 accidents so far! Nuclear spacecraft development & launches are expensive. It cost 3.5 bill just to launch the Cassini! The SNAP 9A cost $2.5 billion, & look what happened to it! It re-entered the Earth, thus a big waste of money. Not only is nuclear-powered spacecraft too expensive to launch, recovery & clean-up from radioactive material & plutonium is expensive, proving the point that nuclear-powered spacecraft is unfeasible.
Scientific American Magazine:
If there is break up of a spacecraft at launch, the costs of decontamination of plutonium in areas would be at least $250 million in a farmland, to at least $1.5 billion in cities for each square mile.
Judge, if there is no feasible technology for deep space exploration, then so be it. Saturn & Pluto, or deep space exploration, can wait. They are not going anywhere, so why rush to deploy methods that aren"t safe? We cannot risk human lives & environmental damage over this & that is why we need a ban on nuclear powered spacecraft.
TruthOne

Pro

TruthOne forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lin0913

Con

:( TruthOne...
I guess voters vote for me? since you forfeited, but I can make a new debate if you plan on debating and not forfeiting
TruthOne

Pro

But ban nuclear-powered spacecraft will make our curiosity more and answers less and thus preventing our development.
Debate Round No. 3
lin0913

Con

...okay...
TruthOne

Pro

TruthOne forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lin0913

Con

Voters, due to the forfeit by my opponent, please vote for me :) thank you
TruthOne

Pro

TruthOne forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Did you skip over the BAN word there? Con is clearly right.
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
TruthOne,
I'm on the Con side of the issue, meaning I SUPPORT nuclear powered spacecraft. Your opening agrees with my stance, but you are supposed to be Pro (meaning you want nuclear powered spacecraft to be banned).
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
Yeah, he hasn't any idea what he's talking about, seeing as I'm Con/Against.
3 letters:
L
O
L
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
LOL on the first comment WOW.
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
In reply to zxcvzxcvzxcv,
Before you title me as a dumbass, please learn how to read. I am on the Con side of this topic. This means I am against the resolution. Logically, it follows that I believe nuclear powered spacecraft is beneficial. Your comment is completely irrelevant as it agrees with my stance on the issue.
Also, you are assuming that my main argument, IF (I repeat, IF) I were to be Pro/For, is that nuclear powered spacecraft is unsafe. This is not the case.
Not to mention that I was never on the Pro side in the first place.
Posted by zxcvzxcvzxcv 3 years ago
zxcvzxcvzxcv
You should be banned for being a DUMB A S S. Technology has advanced far enough that nuclear powered spacecraft are 100% SAFE!!!

Not only that, but it's impossible to use the same nuclear material for a nuclear weapon. Read your facts and leave this site!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.