• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forget Mars, Trump wants NASA to visit Europa and explore the solar system

late said:
I was talking about the politics of NASA.

Ike did his usual great job at putting NASA together. But if you want to know the perception, read about Nixon's relationship to it, as president.
Click to expand...

You mean the president who authorized the start of the Space Shuttle program?
 
jmotivator said:
You mean the president who authorized the start of the Space Shuttle program?
Click to expand...

Absafragginglutely.

Now tell me about how Nixon built on Apollo.

Oh wait, he didn't. If my eyes roll any harder, I'll be looking at my insides.
 
late said:
I had a feeling you were going to do that.

They have thing thing called google now...

https://www.google.com/search?q=technology+developed+for+Apollo&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Click to expand...

When I state that NASA's great success was in pulling together numerous existing technologies the sane counter argument is not a list of technologies that NASA paid companies to develop for the Apollo project. That actually proves my point.

These companies didn't simply spring out of the ether when NASA needed them. The Apollo program gave them the resources and the proof of concept they needed, NASA didn't invent any of it.
 
jmotivator said:
When I state that NASA's great success was in pulling together numerous existing technologies the sane counter argument is not a list of technologies that NASA paid companies to develop for the Apollo project. That actually proves my point.

These companies didn't simply spring out of the ether when NASA needed them. The Apollo program gave them the resources and the proof of concept they needed, NASA didn't invent any of it.
Click to expand...

"Daniel Lockney, the editor of Spinoff, NASA's annual publication that reports on the use of the agency's technologies in the private sector, said the advancements during the Apollo missions were staggering.

"There were remarkable discoveries in civil, electrical, aeronautical and engineering science, as well as rocketry and the development of core technologies that really pushed technology into the industry it is today," he said. "It was perhaps one of the greatest engineering and scientific feats of all time..."
NASA's Apollo technology has changed history | Computerworld


Time to let it go.
 
late said:
Absafragginglutely.

Now tell me about how Nixon built on Apollo.

Oh wait, he didn't. If my eyes roll any harder, I'll be looking at my insides.
Click to expand...

Who argued that Nixon built on Apollo? Nice straw man.
 
late said:
"Daniel Lockney, the editor of Spinoff, NASA's annual publication that reports on the use of the agency's technologies in the private sector, said the advancements during the Apollo missions were staggering.

"There were remarkable discoveries in civil, electrical, aeronautical and engineering science, as well as rocketry and the development of core technologies that really pushed technology into the industry it is today," he said. "It was perhaps one of the greatest engineering and scientific feats of all time..."
NASA's Apollo technology has changed history | Computerworld


Time to let it go.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. NASA didn't discover any of those technologies, those technologies were awarded as best of concept of existing technologies developed by private organizations. NASA's crucible simply funded the best of existing technology and gave them a boost moving into the private sector... but that isn't the same as inventing the technology.

You are right, you do need to let it go.

Quick question:

DARPA puts out a challenge for driver-less cars and sets a number of specific goals that the winner will need to meet in order to win. A private company develops a car that meets the requirements.... did DARPA invent it? Did the company that made the car even event any of the components? The answers are No and probably not.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Yeah, this is something a lot of people get wrong about the moon landing. The moon landing was a monumental organizational triumph, not a technological leap forward. All of the technology involved in the moon landing had been around for years when NASA was tasked to bring all the technologies together to accomplish the moon mission.
Click to expand...

Yup, NASA actually brought in Boeing a the general manager because NASA was so ill equiped to bring all those different technologies together
 
ludin said:
Obama trashed nasa and turned it from the mission that it was setup to do.
with trump nasa will get back to doing what it should be doing. that will be a good thing.

nasa should be working on next generation engines for space.
Click to expand...

Obama has very poor judgement so ya, and of course NASA never got the money to carry out his plan so this is probably not going to waste as much much money as the Bush aborted by Obama NASA plan, but my point still stands....we need a President to set NASA up in a good direction, and then we need the next President or two to leave the plan alone so that something can finally get done. Obama felt the need to leave his stamp on NASA, and in the process wasted 8 years and many billions of dollars.

This needs to stop now.

America needs better.
 
ludin said:
Obama trashed nasa and turned it from the mission that it was setup to do.
with trump nasa will get back to doing what it should be doing. that will be a good thing.

nasa should be working on next generation engines for space.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, I believe that under President Trump we will make significant advancements in the realm of manned space exploration (should he last 2 terms), despite my rather abysmal expectations of him on other areas...

The man is such a climate change denier I expect he will be motivated to get the space-ex agenda off the ground in no time by way of sheer fear alone...
 
Abbazorkzog said:
For what its worth, I believe that under President Trump we will make significant advancements in the realm of manned space exploration (should he last 2 terms), despite my rather abysmal expectations of him on other areas...

The man is such a climate change denier I expect he will be motivated to get the space-ex agenda off the ground in no time by way of sheer fear alone...
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a climate change denier.
If you can't use proper terms I can't take you seriously.
 
ludin said:
There is no such thing as a climate change denier.
If you can't use proper terms I can't take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Do you want to have a civil debate wherein (at least *I* personally think) we could meet a middle ground and both learn something... ?
 
Bodhisattva said:
NATO does not have interplanetary capabilities...
Click to expand...

Europa is a moon.

I'd love to see us investigate it, but what scientists want to do is check out the ocean. That's going to be a big, hairy, expensive deal. Trump might send a probe, and that would be fine, but what we really want lies beneath at least 10 miles of ice.

Like I said, a big, hairy, expensive deal.
 
jmotivator said:
Who argued that Nixon built on Apollo? Nice straw man.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite.

Apollo was so successful that everyone thought it was just the first step. Instead, Nixon shoved the shuttle down their throat, killed Hubble, etc.
 
late said:
Quite the opposite.

Apollo was so successful that everyone thought it was just the first step. Instead, Nixon shoved the shuttle down their throat, killed Hubble, etc.
Click to expand...

Nope. The moon mission was a success. The next goal was a space station which needed a reusable craft to complete. The shuttle was the next step on NASAs plan.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope. The moon mission was a success. The next goal was a space station which needed a reusable craft to complete. The shuttle was the next step on NASAs plan.
Click to expand...

Nice fantasy.

Nixon's shuttle was only LEO capable. Nixon did NOT push for a Space station, or any other of the big plans. He did kill a number of projects, like Hubble.

Ya got bupkus, sweety. Again.
 
late said:
Nice fantasy.

Nixon's shuttle was only LEO capable. Nixon did NOT push for a Space station, or any other of the big plans. He did kill a number of projects, like Hubble.

Ya got bupkus, sweety. Again.
Click to expand...

Nixon "didn't push for a space station" is yet another straw man. NASA needed a shuttle for their future plans and Nixon authorized it. The ISS and Hubble wouldn't exist without the Shuttle.
 
jmotivator said:
Nixon "didn't push for a space station" is yet another straw man. NASA needed a shuttle for their future plans and Nixon authorized it. The ISS and Hubble wouldn't exist without the Shuttle.
Click to expand...

If he "revered" NASA, he would have pushed for one of the big plans.

You might want to take a closer look at how we wound up with a LEO shuttle...

You should also take a closer look at the history of the Hubble. He cancelled that program. The guys in that program worked for free to finish putting it together so that it might one day fly.

You keep shuffling words around, but that's all you are doing. You haven't supported your contention, and your lack of familiarity with the program makes what you do say pretty silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom