Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is NASA pointless?

Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
well, is it important? as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless. Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless. Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet? Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:44:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important?

Yes.

as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless.

Why is this the only criteria?

Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless.

So you say.

Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

Again, why is it necessary for us to "visit" for NASA to have worth?

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

It would be better if we spent more on all science. Look at the NASA budget, can you really say it is "too high"? It is a drop in the bucket, and has paid back more than it has ever cost.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 4:14:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I dont think nasa is pointless but is almost hunerous that we throw billions of dollars at space and still have starving people all over the world and not just in poor countries. I think your just seeing the priorities of imperialism on display. Any country would love to say they can just build a civilization on mars for example because it gives one the leverage to say, so what if you wipe out my country with nukes, youll never reach me here.
Stronn
Posts: 316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:29:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important? as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless. Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless. Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet? Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

NASA's budget represents one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the federal budget. Compared to social security (24%), medicare/medicaid and other health care programs (25%) and low-income entitlement programs (10%), it is a drop in the bucket. Spending the money allocated to NASA instead in one of those areas would make no discernible difference.

If it is practical applications you want, see https://en.wikipedia.org... for a list of spin-off technologies that have been produced by NASA research. In addition, the survival of our species may one day depend on what NASA is doing in tracking near-earth objects.

Aside from short-term practical considerations, space exploration fulfills our innate desire to understand the universe. Projects like the Hubble Space Telescope have added enormously to our understanding of the scope and scale of the universe. If we aspire to be more than just animals that eat, sleep and procreate, having concern only for our day-to-day lives, then nothing fulfills that aspiration like space exploration. I can think of no prouder moment in the history of humanity than when we set foot on the Moon.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:44:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless.

Why is this the only criteria?
well, this is not the only criteria indeed. I might have erred when I told it. but what benefit can we have as long as we do not have a technology to transfer something or someone to that places or from that places? how can we have benefit from the discoveries of NASA?
Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless.

So you say.
yes, I think so, if I am wrong can you enlighten me? what benefit do we have from NASA?
Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet?

The two are not mutually exclusive.
yes, they are not mutually exclusive/ but the money that is spent just to watch what kind of stone is there in a say 5000000 kms away could have been spent for something better.
Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

Again, why is it necessary for us to "visit" for NASA to have worth?
why it is necessary to visit? yes, visiting is not the only option with which we can have beenfit. the thing that is necessary is to have benefit, income from the thing people are spending money. or at least, it is necessary to cover your expense for that thing.
sometimes money are spent on things that does not give any income but that things are necessary or important. considering the stones, planets, cosmic units which are outside of our reach, spending money on such things is useless.
NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

It would be better if we spent more on all science.
yes, it would be better I agree with that. but we could have spent that money on science which is necessary, important for us. a planet that is 140000000 kms away is not important, a stone that is 798 kms away from the orbit of earth is not necessary. a gas collection that is 65634198 kms away is not important.
Look at the NASA budget, can you really say it is "too high"? It is a drop in the bucket, and has paid back more than it has ever cost.
yes, that is too high considering almost all they do is useless. even a drop in the bucket is too high if it is being spent uselessly.

I dont know exactly but NASA's budget is something like 5 dollars out of every 1000 (thousand )dollars, that is being taken from the government, taxes.

can you say 5 out of 1000 dollars is not high if it is being spent on something that is totally needless? say, out of your every 1000 dollars 5 is thrown to the rubbish, used as a toilet paper? what NASA is doing is no different than that.

discovering a stone that is flying 16498431 kms away, discovering a water on a planet that is 65464163 miles away and telling people "oh, there is water there, there is a stone there. there is sound there" is nothing beneficiary. that is like burning money
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:14:07 PM, bigotry wrote:
I dont think nasa is pointless but is almost hunerous that we throw billions of dollars at space and still have starving people all over the world
that is what I would want instead of hearing "there is a collection of stones in a distance that is 356 light years away". That money could have been spent forr killing poverty or reducing poverty.
and not just in poor countries.
right. It would be better even if USA just focused on its inside poverty.
I think your just seeing the priorities of imperialism on display.
I did not understand, can you enlighten?

Any country would love to say they can just build a civilization on mars for example because it gives one the leverage to say, so what if you wipe out my country with nukes, youll never reach me here.
this part is not important hence I will skip without answering.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:09:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
NASA's budget represents one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the federal budget.
I think it means "1 dollar in every 200 dollars"?!

Compared to social security (24%), medicare/medicaid and other health care programs (25%) and low-income entitlement programs (10%), it is a drop in the bucket. Spending the money allocated to NASA instead in one of those areas would make no discernible difference.
even if it is a drop in the bucket it is high considering that the money given to NASA is no different than throwing that money in to the wind.
If it is practical applications you want, see https://en.wikipedia.org... for a list of spin-off technologies that have been produced by NASA research.
and then? what benefit does it have to us? for ex: invention of electricity eased our life in one or several ways.
invention of plane made it easier and faster andsafer for us to travel.
invention of internet made education easier. and e.t.c

what benefit did spin off technologies bring us that did not exist before NASA's inventing spin off technologies?!
In addition, the survival of our species may one day depend on what NASA is doing in tracking near-earth objects.
hmmm, that is possible. but look at point 1 and imagine: the earth is being threatened by an asteroid as big as moon. it is GOING TO crush us and we will die. then? it all is happenign in say 2195, Earth 2.0 can host us. then, how can our survival can depend on it? can NASA transfer us to Earth 2.0?! even with warp technology we cant reach there on time. you may say:
if NASA goes like this, they can invent warp technology which is 100 times faster than light speed. if that is the case:
then we need to spend money on inventing and creating such technology, not on "hearing and reading on newspapers what kind of stone types, star types are there in 1354986541 kms away"
Aside from short-term practical considerations, space exploration fulfills our innate desire to understand the universe. Projects like the Hubble Space Telescope have added enormously to our understanding of the scope and scale of the universe. If we aspire to be more than just animals that eat, sleep and procreate, having concern only for our day-to-day lives, then nothing fulfills that aspiration like space exploration
humanity or we may have desire to understand the universe but does our desire to do something that is not indispensable mean we should spend on money our that desire instead of spending money on solving our important, indispensable problems such as "poverty, war, starving people, global warming"?

. I can think of no prouder moment in the history of humanity than when we set foot on the Moon.
focusing on moon or something that is in reach of us may be not useless, needles. we can go to moon, we can take soemthing from the moon.
but what is the point of spending money on searching what kind of stones are there in 34687464 light years away? just to satisfy the ego of someone? would not it be better if that money was spent for the people who are in poverty? in war? who needs medical care?

believe me, NASA is b.llshit. there are many rubbishes near our earth which threatens us. does NASA do something for it? as far as I know, NO. an organisation from holland is doing it, even they are more beneficial than NASA.

there is a threat in front of us and instead of destroying it NASA focuses on 3216465316874651654 kms away and we spend money on that.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:15:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:44:50 AM, Artur wrote:
as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless.

Why is this the only criteria?
well, this is not the only criteria indeed. I might have erred when I told it. but what benefit can we have as long as we do not have a technology to transfer something or someone to that places or from that places? how can we have benefit from the discoveries of NASA?

Understanding? Knowledge? Look, NASA has turned more tech into things that make this world work than ANYONE. ANYONE. Think of any big company. Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, HP. They are dwarfed by the contributions of NASA.

Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless.

So you say.
yes, I think so, if I am wrong can you enlighten me? what benefit do we have from NASA?

Look at some of the links on this thread. Do you like your cell phone? GPS? What technology, medical advancement, or just plan inspiring science is next is unknown, but its a good bet that NASA will play some part in it.

Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet?

The two are not mutually exclusive.
yes, they are not mutually exclusive/ but the money that is spent just to watch what kind of stone is there in a say 5000000 kms away could have been spent for something better.

As I noted (and others) the NASA budget is a pittance. You could cut the entire thing and not make a dent in other issues. Cut military. What has it produced for you?

Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

Again, why is it necessary for us to "visit" for NASA to have worth?
why it is necessary to visit? yes, visiting is not the only option with which we can have beenfit. the thing that is necessary is to have benefit, income from the thing people are spending money. or at least, it is necessary to cover your expense for that thing.

I would "spend" every dime to learn if there is more live out in the universe. It would be beneficial to me, and many many more.

sometimes money are spent on things that does not give any income but that things are necessary or important. considering the stones, planets, cosmic units which are outside of our reach, spending money on such things is useless.

OK. Useless. That is just silly. Just employing people has use, so by any mesure it has use. The actual use of knowledge is immeasurable. What we will do with what we learn can only be limited by imagination.

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

It would be better if we spent more on all science.
yes, it would be better I agree with that. but we could have spent that money on science which is necessary, important for us. a planet that is 140000000 kms away is not important, a stone that is 798 kms away from the orbit of earth is not necessary. a gas collection that is 65634198 kms away is not important.

There is plenty we can learn about from distant objects. It has value for understanding near objects. It has value for understanding the natural world.

Look at the NASA budget, can you really say it is "too high"? It is a drop in the bucket, and has paid back more than it has ever cost.
yes, that is too high considering almost all they do is useless. even a drop in the bucket is too high if it is being spent uselessly.

Right around 18b. That is their budget. There is more waste and fraud in other parts in the budget per year than the total spend on NASA.


I dont know exactly but NASA's budget is something like 5 dollars out of every 1000 (thousand )dollars, that is being taken from the government, taxes.

They are ~.05% so yea, your 5:1,000 is about right. Is that really worrying to you?


can you say 5 out of 1000 dollars is not high if it is being spent on something that is totally needless? say, out of your every 1000 dollars 5 is thrown to the rubbish, used as a toilet paper? what NASA is doing is no different than that.

discovering a stone that is flying 16498431 kms away, discovering a water on a planet that is 65464163 miles away and telling people "oh, there is water there, there is a stone there. there is sound there" is nothing beneficiary. that is like burning money

This may never get through, you may never care, but NASA has better return on investment than just about any government spending. I have no issue with the amount, other than it being way to low.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:17:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:09:39 PM, Artur wrote:
NASA's budget represents one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the federal budget.
I think it means "1 dollar in every 200 dollars"?!

Compared to social security (24%), medicare/medicaid and other health care programs (25%) and low-income entitlement programs (10%), it is a drop in the bucket. Spending the money allocated to NASA instead in one of those areas would make no discernible difference.
even if it is a drop in the bucket it is high considering that the money given to NASA is no different than throwing that money in to the wind.
If it is practical applications you want, see https://en.wikipedia.org... for a list of spin-off technologies that have been produced by NASA research.
and then? what benefit does it have to us? for ex: invention of electricity eased our life in one or several ways.
invention of plane made it easier and faster andsafer for us to travel.
invention of internet made education easier. and e.t.c

what benefit did spin off technologies bring us that did not exist before NASA's inventing spin off technologies?!
In addition, the survival of our species may one day depend on what NASA is doing in tracking near-earth objects.
hmmm, that is possible. but look at point 1 and imagine: the earth is being threatened by an asteroid as big as moon. it is GOING TO crush us and we will die. then? it all is happenign in say 2195, Earth 2.0 can host us. then, how can our survival can depend on it? can NASA transfer us to Earth 2.0?! even with warp technology we cant reach there on time. you may say:
if NASA goes like this, they can invent warp technology which is 100 times faster than light speed. if that is the case:
then we need to spend money on inventing and creating such technology, not on "hearing and reading on newspapers what kind of stone types, star types are there in 1354986541 kms away"
Aside from short-term practical considerations, space exploration fulfills our innate desire to understand the universe. Projects like the Hubble Space Telescope have added enormously to our understanding of the scope and scale of the universe. If we aspire to be more than just animals that eat, sleep and procreate, having concern only for our day-to-day lives, then nothing fulfills that aspiration like space exploration
humanity or we may have desire to understand the universe but does our desire to do something that is not indispensable mean we should spend on money our that desire instead of spending money on solving our important, indispensable problems such as "poverty, war, starving people, global warming"?

. I can think of no prouder moment in the history of humanity than when we set foot on the Moon.
focusing on moon or something that is in reach of us may be not useless, needles. we can go to moon, we can take soemthing from the moon.
but what is the point of spending money on searching what kind of stones are there in 34687464 light years away? just to satisfy the ego of someone? would not it be better if that money was spent for the people who are in poverty? in war? who needs medical care?

believe me, NASA is b.llshit. there are many rubbishes near our earth which threatens us. does NASA do something for it? as far as I know, NO. an organisation from holland is doing it, even they are more beneficial than NASA.

there is a threat in front of us and instead of destroying it NASA focuses on 3216465316874651654 kms away and we spend money on that.

I think your entire post here can be summed up as "What have you done for me lately".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:36:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Near earth space development is clearly beneficial: communications satellites, remote sensiing and mapping, weather satellites, and GPS for example. NASA started those enterprises, but they are now so profitable that they are independently profitable and are run by private enterprise.

Moon exploration and development is likely to pay off well. Water on the moon can be converted to rocket fuel using solar power, and the fuel is then useful for boosting payloads to high orbits from low orbits and to return payloads to earth. Now, all the fuel has to be boosted into orbit from earth, which is expensive. Moon fabrication could make space solar power satellites to bean down power to any place on earth. There is seven times as much solar energy in space and it is 24/7, uninterrupted by night or weather. Climate engineer solutions are also possible by putting thin metal films in orbit to increase or decrease the solar energy reaching earth.

Currently, private capital markets do not provide funds for long term high-risk investment. Mayb such mechanisms can be derived so government doesn't have to do funding, but that's not the current situation.

Pure research is difficult to value. We all know that understanding how the universe works is in general valuable, but it's hard to predict what future benefits will be. We should be confident enough in the general value of scientific understanding to fund the pure research done by NASA. It's very little compared to the vast sums paid out by government on social programs that have had little measurable effect. The cure to earthly problems is free enterprise, not government money.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:14:07 PM, bigotry wrote:
I dont think nasa is pointless but is almost hunerous that we throw billions of dollars at space and still have starving people all over the world and not just in poor countries. I think your just seeing the priorities of imperialism on display. Any country would love to say they can just build a civilization on mars for example because it gives one the leverage to say, so what if you wipe out my country with nukes, youll never reach me here.

One of China's first space endeavors was growing vegetables in zero G. The Chinese claim success with super sized vegetables and different newly developed genetic lines.

http://www.zdnet.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:41:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important? as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless. Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless. Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet? Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

I get the sense that you aren't the scientific type.
Meh!
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:42:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Understanding? Knowledge? Look, NASA has turned more tech into things that make this world work than ANYONE. ANYONE. Think of any big company. Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, HP. They are dwarfed by the contributions of NASA.
for example?!

Look at some of the links on this thread. Do you like your cell phone? GPS? What technology, medical advancement, or just plan inspiring science is next is unknown, but its a good bet that NASA will play some part in it.

well, even though I do not love my cellphone or GPS, I think life with GPS or phone is better than the life without them.
but for them we do not need an organisatiion which looks for 98465498453164 KMs away for an ocean, for a stone and e.t.c
do we need to know our near distance? so, the best thing is to reform NASA or close NASA and open a new organistion supported by the state which does not spend money on needless things like NASA does. if we need to know our near distance, just spend money on our near distance. not 341654634987654316574987 KMs away. we can learn our near distance, create GPS system without knowing anything on something that is 321654649843187463165749864354 KMs away.

As I noted (and others) the NASA budget is a pittance. You could cut the entire thing and not make a dent in other issues. Cut military. What has it produced for you?
now, military is needed for the defence of the country. if military was spending money on something that is useless, like a stone or water that is 31654897465498765467498643165 kms away, I would agree with you. do you really think army or defence, safety is as useless as a stone or water that is 65465484684531657984654 KMs away?

I would "spend" every dime to learn if there is more live out in the universe. It would be beneficial to me, and many many more.
I am not against you or any person who wants to spend his/her money on science or who wants to burn his/her money.
but the state fund is not comprised of such people only, it is taken from everybody.
in this case, the best thing and rational thing to do is to make NASA supported by volunteer people who wants to ""spend" every dime to learn if there is more live out in the universe. It would be beneficial to me, and many many more." such people are very few but the money that is given to NASA is not taken from that people only. it is taken from everybody including people who do not want to spend money for reading an article which says "there is an ocean in a 3146464984316547+98446 miles away distance"

sometimes money are spent on things that does not give any income but that things are necessary or important. considering the stones, planets, cosmic units which are outside of our reach, spending money on such things is useless.

OK. Useless. That is just silly. Just employing people has use, so by any mesure it has use.
if the money that is spent for stones and water that is located 1265464987465164984653134654 KMs away was not spent for that stone and money then it could have been spent for another sector which would and could have employed people. and that money could have been invested on a sector which could have given a benefit.

The actual use of knowledge is immeasurable. What we will do with what we learn can only be limited by imagination.
I agree, knowledge and science is almost immeasurable but useless knowledge is usefull and immeasurable. what is the point on reading an article which says "there is a water on a planet that is 3416849846476179 miles away from the earth?" what benefit does this kind of knowledge have? what is the point of such a knowledge?
NASA could have given us a knowledge that is beneficial, I agree with that. money could have been spent on such a knowledge, but why should you give your money to several useless knowledge just because the one that gave you that several knowledges once gave you one usefull knowledge?

There is plenty we can learn about from distant objects.
there may be something that you can learn from distant objects. 1) what is that that you can learn from distant objects but not from near objects? 2) what benefit does the thing you learnt from that object have for you? 3) ok, let us assume it has knowledge, but what does it have for a person who is even not interested in that knowledge but yet whose money is given to NASA?

It has value for understanding near objects. It has value for understanding the natural world.
for example? what is that that we know since NASA discovered distant objects but we could not have understood if we did not know that far objects?

Right around 18b. That is their budget. There is more waste and fraud in other parts in the budget per year than the total spend on NASA.
you mean, "there are waste money that is being spent, so spending money on another useless thing is OK?" yes, there may be money that is being spent for waste, but it must not mean we must continue spending money on such things, it should mean: "we must try to stop all of them, not we must try to support them for wasting money"

I dont know exactly but NASA's budget is something like 5 dollars out of every 1000 (thousand )dollars, that is being taken from the government, taxes.

They are ~.05% so yea, your 5:1,000 is about right. Is that really worrying to you?
it is not worrying to me since my money is not given to NASA yet. it is just to discuss. but question:
would not it be worrying to you if the government is burning 5 dollars out of every 1000 dollars from the budget of the state?

can you say 5 out of 1000 dollars is not high if it is being spent on something that is totally needless? say, out of your every 1000 dollars 5 is thrown to the rubbish, used as a toilet paper? what NASA is doing is no different than that.

discovering a stone that is flying 16498431 kms away, discovering a water on a planet that is 65464163 miles away and telling people "oh, there is water there, there is a stone there. there is sound there" is nothing beneficiary. that is like burning money

This may never get through, you may never care, but NASA has better return on investment than just about any government spending. I have no issue with the amount, other than it being way to low.
ok, it may be true. but can you enlighten me?
what NASA has in return? I really do not anything in return from NASA besides reading a news which says "there is a water on a planet located 646464987649876546546 KMs away, the stone crushed something" and e.t.c and sometimes videos or video simulations on that.

is it really better return than other economic sectors? or am I missing something that NASA provides us in return for 5 dollars for every 1000 dollars?

would you pay 5 dollars for someone who writes "there is a water 9646498746167987684 miles away, there is a stone 468746549879465464 miles away, there is a star that is 9 times larger than our sun" and e.t.c does it really worth something?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:47:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Near earth space development is clearly beneficial: communications satellites, remote sensiing and mapping, weather satellites, and GPS for example. NASA started those enterprises, but they are now so profitable that they are independently profitable and are run by private enterprise.
Moon exploration and development is likely to pay off well.
agree, they are beneficial but they can be done without NASA as well. what I mean is: just reduce NASA or create an organisation that works on near earth space. not like NASA. it would reduce the money that is being given to NASA.

but the rest NASA reveals has no benefit i think. if it has, enlighten please and I will be glad to change my mind. I will be glad to know what benefit can we have from knowing "there is a water 16498746549876416 miles away. the star that is located 64568413549846351654 miles away is 10 times larger than the sun" and e.t.c
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:48:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I get the sense that you aren't the scientific type.
may be. let us say true.
then, does it change something? what benefit would we have from majority of NASA's revelations if I was scientific type?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:55:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:48:48 AM, Artur wrote:
I get the sense that you aren't the scientific type.
may be. let us say true.
then, does it change something? what benefit would we have from majority of NASA's revelations if I was scientific type?

No, it just shows that you aren't the kind of person to appreciate the brilliant work they do
Meh!
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:01:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:55:10 AM, Axonly wrote:
No, it just shows that you aren't the kind of person to appreciate the brilliant work they do
hmm, good. what brilliant work do they do? share please.
what is the brilliancy in what they do?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:48:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:01:00 AM, Artur wrote:
At 4/22/2016 9:55:10 AM, Axonly wrote:
No, it just shows that you aren't the kind of person to appreciate the brilliant work they do
hmm, good. what brilliant work do they do? share please.
what is the brilliancy in what they do?

They are the biggest contributors of planetary science, are revolutionary space explorers, have made significant contributions to astrophysics and have various probes around earth that contribute to a vast array of science (particularly geology and climatology.

Only the most narrow minded, lazy non-thinkers couldn't appreciate, nor understand the significance of this.
Meh!
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:32:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:48:18 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:01:00 AM, Artur wrote:
At 4/22/2016 9:55:10 AM, Axonly wrote:
No, it just shows that you aren't the kind of person to appreciate the brilliant work they do
hmm, good. what brilliant work do they do? share please.
what is the brilliancy in what they do?

They are the biggest contributors of planetary science, are revolutionary space explorers, have made significant contributions to astrophysics and have various probes around earth that contribute to a vast array of science (particularly geology and climatology.

Only the most narrow minded, lazy non-thinkers couldn't appreciate, nor understand the significance of this.
well, 1. they have benefits but very little. the benefit they borught us can be had without NASA as well.
2. majority of what they is needless. they may be good space explorer but what is the point in exploring the space? it should be hobby of the people who are rich and do not have problems like poverty, illiteracy, danger. like Norway. USA is not such a country, a government like that of USA should first give its money to poverty, education, safety. in the usa
there really is many things which are far more important than the water or stone that is 27183837372722727717171727 miles away.

you may say "if NASA was not there, we would not have probes around earth that nasa made, we would not have knowledge in climatology" and e.t.c

but wait, in order to get good at climatology or have a probe around earth one does not need to spend money in order to hear what kind of stone there is 72738282828282 kilometers away. just spend money on climatology, probe. not a stone or a water that is 865686549183747 miles away.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:47:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:32:46 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:48:18 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:01:00 AM, Artur wrote:
At 4/22/2016 9:55:10 AM, Axonly wrote:
No, it just shows that you aren't the kind of person to appreciate the brilliant work they do
hmm, good. what brilliant work do they do? share please.
what is the brilliancy in what they do?

They are the biggest contributors of planetary science, are revolutionary space explorers, have made significant contributions to astrophysics and have various probes around earth that contribute to a vast array of science (particularly geology and climatology.

Only the most narrow minded, lazy non-thinkers couldn't appreciate, nor understand the significance of this.
well, 1. they have benefits but very little. the benefit they borught us can be had without NASA as well.
2. majority of what they is needless. they may be good space explorer but what is the point in exploring the space? it should be hobby of the people who are rich and do not have problems like poverty, illiteracy, danger. like Norway. USA is not such a country, a government like that of USA should first give its money to poverty, education, safety. in the usa
there really is many things which are far more important than the water or stone that is 27183837372722727717171727 miles away.

you may say "if NASA was not there, we would not have probes around earth that nasa made, we would not have knowledge in climatology" and e.t.c

but wait, in order to get good at climatology or have a probe around earth one does not need to spend money in order to hear what kind of stone there is 72738282828282 kilometers away. just spend money on climatology, probe. not a stone or a water that is 865686549183747 miles away.

That really seems to be what it is, you seriously seem to be incapable of understanding their importance, as if it was impossible.

Meh, maybe you have to get a scientifically interested person to understand.

(I know you aren't because you spout lots of misconceptions about what NASA does
Meh!
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:13:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:42:06 AM, Artur wrote:
Understanding? Knowledge? Look, NASA has turned more tech into things that make this world work than ANYONE. ANYONE. Think of any big company. Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, HP. They are dwarfed by the contributions of NASA.
for example?!

Look at some of the links on this thread. Do you like your cell phone? GPS? What technology, medical advancement, or just plan inspiring science is next is unknown, but its a good bet that NASA will play some part in it.

well, even though I do not love my cellphone or GPS, I think life with GPS or phone is better than the life without them.
but for them we do not need an organisatiion which looks for 98465498453164 KMs away for an ocean, for a stone and e.t.c
do we need to know our near distance? so, the best thing is to reform NASA or close NASA and open a new organistion supported by the state which does not spend money on needless things like NASA does. if we need to know our near distance, just spend money on our near distance. not 341654634987654316574987 KMs away. we can learn our near distance, create GPS system without knowing anything on something that is 321654649843187463165749864354 KMs away.

As I noted (and others) the NASA budget is a pittance. You could cut the entire thing and not make a dent in other issues. Cut military. What has it produced for you?
now, military is needed for the defence of the country. if military was spending money on something that is useless, like a stone or water that is 31654897465498765467498643165 kms away, I would agree with you. do you really think army or defence, safety is as useless as a stone or water that is 65465484684531657984654 KMs away?

I would "spend" every dime to learn if there is more live out in the universe. It would be beneficial to me, and many many more.
I am not against you or any person who wants to spend his/her money on science or who wants to burn his/her money.
but the state fund is not comprised of such people only, it is taken from everybody.
in this case, the best thing and rational thing to do is to make NASA supported by volunteer people who wants to ""spend" every dime to learn if there is more live out in the universe. It would be beneficial to me, and many many more." such people are very few but the money that is given to NASA is not taken from that people only. it is taken from everybody including people who do not want to spend money for reading an article which says "there is an ocean in a 3146464984316547+98446 miles away distance"

sometimes money are spent on things that does not give any income but that things are necessary or important. considering the stones, planets, cosmic units which are outside of our reach, spending money on such things is useless.

OK. Useless. That is just silly. Just employing people has use, so by any mesure it has use.
if the money that is spent for stones and water that is located 1265464987465164984653134654 KMs away was not spent for that stone and money then it could have been spent for another sector which would and could have employed people. and that money could have been invested on a sector which could have given a benefit.

The actual use of knowledge is immeasurable. What we will do with what we learn can only be limited by imagination.
I agree, knowledge and science is almost immeasurable but useless knowledge is usefull and immeasurable. what is the point on reading an article which says "there is a water on a planet that is 3416849846476179 miles away from the earth?" what benefit does this kind of knowledge have? what is the point of such a knowledge?
NASA could have given us a knowledge that is beneficial, I agree with that. money could have been spent on such a knowledge, but why should you give your money to several useless knowledge just because the one that gave you that several knowledges once gave you one usefull knowledge?

There is plenty we can learn about from distant objects.
there may be something that you can learn from distant objects. 1) what is that that you can learn from distant objects but not from near objects? 2) what benefit does the thing you learnt from that object have for you? 3) ok, let us assume it has knowledge, but what does it have for a person who is even not interested in that knowledge but yet whose money is given to NASA?

It has value for understanding near objects. It has value for understanding the natural world.
for example? what is that that we know since NASA discovered distant objects but we could not have understood if we did not know that far objects?

Right around 18b. That is their budget. There is more waste and fraud in other parts in the budget per year than the total spend on NASA.
you mean, "there are waste money that is being spent, so spending money on another useless thing is OK?" yes, there may be money that is being spent for waste, but it must not mean we must continue spending money on such things, it should mean: "we must try to stop all of them, not we must try to support them for wasting money"

I dont know exactly but NASA's budget is something like 5 dollars out of every 1000 (thousand )dollars, that is being taken from the government, taxes.

They are ~.05% so yea, your 5:1,000 is about right. Is that really worrying to you?
it is not worrying to me since my money is not given to NASA yet. it is just to discuss. but question:
would not it be worrying to you if the government is burning 5 dollars out of every 1000 dollars from the budget of the state?

can you say 5 out of 1000 dollars is not high if it is being spent on something that is totally needless? say, out of your every 1000 dollars 5 is thrown to the rubbish, used as a toilet paper? what NASA is doing is no different than that.

discovering a stone that is flying 16498431 kms away, discovering a water on a planet that is 65464163 miles away and telling people "oh, there is water there, there is a stone there. there is sound there" is nothing beneficiary. that is like burning money

This may never get through, you may never care, but NASA has better return on investment than just about any government spending. I have no issue with the amount, other than it being way to low.
ok, it may be true. but can you enlighten me?
what NASA has in return? I really do not anything in return from NASA besides reading a news which says "there is a water on a planet located 646464987649876546546 KMs away, the stone crushed something" and e.t.c and sometimes videos or video simulations on that.

is it really better return than other economic sectors? or am I missing something that NASA provides us in return for 5 dollars for every 1000 dollars?

would you pay 5 dollars for someone who writes "there is a water 9646498746167987684 miles away, there is a stone 468746549879465464 miles away, there is a star that is 9 times larger than our sun" and e.t.c does it really worth something?

Ill hit each of your issues later, but lets start with this very simple info graphic
http://www.21stcentech.com...

NASA, with a %700 - %1400 ROI is damn good use of our money.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:46:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:47:21 AM, Artur wrote:

agree, they are beneficial but they can be done without NASA as well. what I mean is: just reduce NASA or create an organisation that works on near earth space. not like NASA. it would reduce the money that is being given to NASA.

The problem is that it is a practical impossibility to attract investment for anything that takes more than ten years to pay off. Drug companies do it when they put ten years and a billion dolars into developing a new drug, but that's rare. Google is selling Boston Robotics, the cutting edge robot company they bought recently, after they found it wouldn't pay back in three years. I'm not claiming it's impossible, however, only that there is no current mechanism. Possibly some great crowdfunded venture is possible.

but the rest NASA reveals has no benefit i think. if it has, enlighten please and I will be glad to change my mind. I will be glad to know what benefit can we have from knowing "there is a water 16498746549876416 miles away. the star that is located 64568413549846351654 miles away is 10 times larger than the sun" and e.t.c

Try to justify research on electricity in 1800, before anything was known about electric motors or communications. It's a general problem with basic research that the uses are not known at the time the investigation is started. The human survival advantage over squid (and others) is that humans are inherently curious and inherently formulators of theories. I think one can make the argument that science could be privately funded, as it was in past centuries. That's the general problem of getting things out of government and back into the private sector. It's not good enough to just say "abolish NASA." A pathway and a mechanism, should be advocated.

NASA has now largely been converted into a propaganda ministry for global warming crisis. That could be just abolished.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:30:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important? as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time

All the tool-using, abstract-thinking, problem-solving hominins ever to have walked this planet are extinct, except for humans, and the evidence is that we didn't kill them off -- they died out through being unable to adapt.

Yet we survived principally by learning to understand and control the environment more than they did -- agriculture, animal husbandry, complex manufacture, scalable societies, and so on.

We live in a universe no species understands, and whenever we try to list what's infeasible, we get it embarrasingly wrong.

We know that no amount of conceivable engineering can keep this planet a viable habitat for our species indefinitely. We know that other habitats are possible, but don't know if they're viable, and cannot say with certainty that they're not.

However, if they are then we will need a long time to work out how to reach and populate them -- perhaps many tens of generations, which is a small time in the existence of species, but a long time for economic planning, and that journey has only barely begun.

Meanwhile, the insights we've gained learning about the universe around us have transformed our society in ways that immediately benefit us -- the economic value of WiFi, for example, is $228b in the US alone. So the cost of such long-term investigation is actually offset by the short-term, intergenerational benefits of spin-off technologies. Astrophysics and space exploration may be working toward a future we cannot envision, yet our sacrifices pay off in generations we can see.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:17:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
When the time comes NASA is wound up and the LHC is sold for scrap we will have given up our dreams. There is no way that the money saved by winding up NASA would help, say, the staving in Africa because the reason it will be wound up is that people don't care about anything except their personal wallet.

I grew up in a different age - the age of the Apollo missions and Concorde. It was a positive age the age when star trek was prphesy, not nostalgia. Something went wrong at the end of the last century and we- humankind- put accountants rather than dreamers in charge. If any one can say - looking at the world today - that was a good thing I will call them a liar.

I hope there are enough dreamers left to keep the bean counters at bay for a while yet. My current hero is a mars rover, still working after 20 times its design life. It's a robot, so doesn't care that most people have forgotten it.

The poor, Jesus, said are always with us. Dismantaling NASA won't raise anybody out if poverty, but it will make us all that little bit smaller and meaner.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:16:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:44:17 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important?

Yes.

as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless.

Why is this the only criteria?

Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless.

So you say.

Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

Again, why is it necessary for us to "visit" for NASA to have worth?

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

It would be better if we spent more on all science. Look at the NASA budget, can you really say it is "too high"? It is a drop in the bucket, and has paid back more than it has ever cost.

Honestly? How has it paid back billions every year? Tang? Petrified wood? NASA is full of shot.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:18:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:14:07 PM, bigotry wrote:
I dont think nasa is pointless but is almost hunerous that we throw billions of dollars at space and still have starving people all over the world and not just in poor countries. I think your just seeing the priorities of imperialism on display. Any country would love to say they can just build a civilization on mars for example because it gives one the leverage to say, so what if you wipe out my country with nukes, youll never reach me here.

Mars is not a place.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:25:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Why can't we have a 24hr live trained camera pointed on earth?
https://youtu.be...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:27:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 9:16:58 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:44:17 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:29:48 PM, Artur wrote:
well, is it important?

Yes.

as long as we yet have no ability or technology that can take us to billions of kilometers away in a reasonable time for a human, NASA is pointless.

Why is this the only criteria?

Focusing on cosmos, space and spending lots of money for space is pointless.

So you say.

Why should we work on too far distances while we should focus on saving our own planet?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Even if there was life say in kepler b 22 which is called earth 2, that is nothing for us. that isn1400 light years away, even if we had warp technology right now it would have taken about 140 years to reach there which means it is something we cant reach.

Again, why is it necessary for us to "visit" for NASA to have worth?

NASA discovers ocean somewhere, discovers a planet like earth, discovers a solr system like ours, discovers the oldest galaxy and e.t.c which are totally b.llshit.

they all have no benefit to us even if we have warp technology right now.The water on mars, the planet like ours e.t.c are all pointless, what can we do even if there are 1000000009 tons of Golds on a planet which is located 2 light years away from us? we wont bring it to earh and use it.

It would be better if we spend money on something saving and making our planet better than searching for a water on a planet located 2 light years away from us

It would be better if we spent more on all science. Look at the NASA budget, can you really say it is "too high"? It is a drop in the bucket, and has paid back more than it has ever cost.

Honestly? How has it paid back billions every year? Tang? Petrified wood? NASA is full of shot.

I can, and I have shown that it does to the tune of 7-14$ return on investment for every dollar spent.

Now. Purely a juxtaposition, the joint strike fighter has cost us 1.5 trillion over 20 years. That is enough to support NASA for 85 years. Can you justify that cost?