• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

This is why space exploration should be left to the private sector

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.



NASA should have been disbanded after Apollo ended, imo.

And before some/most of you go all 'NASA is wonderful - we need them'. Remember that the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle and just about every part of every rocket NASA has used was designed and built by - wait for it - the private sector.

NASA may have been great for getting to the Moon first. But since then, imo, they have done little more then waste money, try and find a reason to justify it's existence and get 14 brave people killed thanks to it's pathetic Go Fever.


Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.



NASA should have been disbanded after Apollo ended, imo.

And before some/most of you go all 'NASA is wonderful - we need them'. Remember that the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle and just about every part of every rocket NASA has used was designed and built by - wait for it - the private sector.

NASA may have been great for getting to the Moon first. But since then, imo, they have done little more then waste money, try and find a reason to justify it's existence and get 14 brave people killed thanks to it's pathetic Go Fever.


Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you're full of crap.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
34,211
Reaction score
22,965
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As with most things, the private sector "innovates" off the back of public sector R&D.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As with most things, the private sector "innovates" off the back of public sector R&D.

I mean, I could write a hundred pages on what NASA has done, and he just tried to handwave all of it with one paragraph. "Eh, they just waste money and kill people!" The one thing he does give them credit for, he tries to undermine by saying the private sector constructed things.

Constructed under the design, oversight, guidance, expertise, and funding of NASA. But sure, give all the credit to the guy who bolted pieces together. He's the only one who matters, I guess.

But SpaceX can land a booster stage on a floating pad with a 50% success rate, woo private sector! *cough* still with help from NASA.
 

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.



NASA should have been disbanded after Apollo ended, imo.

And before some/most of you go all 'NASA is wonderful - we need them'. Remember that the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle and just about every part of every rocket NASA has used was designed and built by - wait for it - the private sector.

NASA may have been great for getting to the Moon first. But since then, imo, they have done little more then waste money, try and find a reason to justify it's existence and get 14 brave people killed thanks to it's pathetic Go Fever.


Thoughts?

We definitely cannot allow NASA to be under military control. You ain't seen a government waste money until you see the military waste money. At least with NASA being it's own agency there's hints of accountability. Under the military there won't be any accountability at all.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As with most things, the private sector "innovates" off the back of public sector R&D.
I would say it is the exact opposite.

All NASA (amd the military) basically does is come up with guidelines/goals and they leave it to the private sector to design and built the products (and weapons) almost exclusively on their own.


For instance:

'The prime contractor for the program was North American Rockwell (later Rockwell International, now Boeing), the same company responsible for building the Apollo Command/Service Module. The contractor for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters was Morton Thiokol (now part of Alliant Techsystems), for the external tank, Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), and for the Space Shuttle main engines, Rocketdyne (now Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, part of United Technologies)'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program


Other then setting general guidelines and getting the dough...how did NASA 'develop' the Space Shuttle (or any other major rocket system for that matter)?
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We definitely cannot allow NASA to be under military control. You ain't seen a government waste money until you see the military waste money. At least with NASA being it's own agency there's hints of accountability. Under the military there won't be any accountability at all.

I said nothing about NASA being controlled by the military...they are two completely seperate entities.

I am saying reduce NASA's space exploration department to NOTHING more then a group of overpaid bureaucrats who layout guidelines, get the dough for it and leave everything else to the private sector...design, construction, training, launch, recovery and everything in between.

I guarantee you it will save billions and probably cost a whole lot less lives.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I mean, I could write a hundred pages on what NASA has done, and he just tried to handwave all of it with one paragraph. "Eh, they just waste money and kill people!" The one thing he does give them credit for, he tries to undermine by saying the private sector constructed things.

Constructed under the design, oversight, guidance, expertise, and funding of NASA. But sure, give all the credit to the guy who bolted pieces together. He's the only one who matters, I guess.

But SpaceX can land a booster stage on a floating pad with a 50% success rate, woo private sector! *cough* still with help from NASA.

Funding is nothing...any idiot can get funding. Especially when it is from Congress.
Oversight and Guidance...again, so what? Once they set the initial parameters...they are superfluous.
Design? Nonsense. NASA did NOT design the Space SHuttle OR Apollo. These systems were designed and manufactured BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. NASA got the dough, set the guidelines and the goals and supervised everything like mother hens. But without the private sector, NO WAY Americans would ever have set foot onthe Moon. No chance at all.
Expertise? Don't make me laugh. I guarantee you the people that designed and built the rockets know a HECK of a lot more about them then the 'experts' at NASA do.


And Space X has done what it is has on $1 billion total. And if they are so awful, then why does NASA not use it's own launch systems instead of paying Space X to? Oh...that's right. They don't have any.
Useless bureaucrats.


Now, instead of overreacting like a schoolgirl...where are your links to factual, unbiased proof that the private sector could not do exactly what NASA does and at a fraction of the cost?

Not theories or opinions...factual proof.

Because without it...you are just spewing forth overemotional bile.
 
Last edited:

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is the OP video without all the RT hype.

 

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I said nothing about NASA being controlled by the military...they are two completely seperate entities.

Are you sure?

Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.
 

katzgar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
9,517
Reaction score
1,695
Location
prairieville, LA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would say it is the exact opposite.

All NASA (amd the military) basically does is come up with guidelines/goals and they leave it to the private sector to design and built the products (and weapons) almost exclusively on their own.


For instance:

'The prime contractor for the program was North American Rockwell (later Rockwell International, now Boeing), the same company responsible for building the Apollo Command/Service Module. The contractor for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters was Morton Thiokol (now part of Alliant Techsystems), for the external tank, Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), and for the Space Shuttle main engines, Rocketdyne (now Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, part of United Technologies)'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program


Other then setting general guidelines and getting the dough...how did NASA 'develop' the Space Shuttle (or any other major rocket system for that matter)?


you would be incorrect. do you remember the infamous o-ring?
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are you sure?

What I meant was that the military has to be able to do it's own space launches using it's own systems...as it does now (military satellites).

Whereas the private sector should handle all non-military space explorations going forward (which NASA does now)...like going to the Moon again or to Mars or to the ISS.
 

katzgar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
9,517
Reaction score
1,695
Location
prairieville, LA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Funding is nothing...any idiot can get funding. Especially when it is from Congress.
Oversight and Guidance...again, so what? Once they set the initial parameters...they are superfluous.
Design? Nonsense. NASA did NOT design the Space SHuttle OR Apollo. These systems were designed and manufactured BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. NASA got the dough, set the guidelines and the goals and supervised everything like mother hens. But without the private sector, NO WAY Americans would ever have set foot onthe Moon. No chance at all.
Expertise? Don't make me laugh. I guarantee you the people that designed and built the rockets know a HECK of a lot more about them then the 'experts' at NASA do.


And Space X has done what it is has on $1 billion total. And if they are so awful, then why does NASA not use it's own launch systems instead of paying Space X to? Oh...that's right. They don't have any.
Useless bureaucrats.


Now, instead of overreacting like a schoolgirl...where are your links to factual, unbiased proof that the private sector could not do exactly what NASA does and at a fraction of the cost?

Not theories or opinions...factual proof.

Because without it...you are just spewing forth overemotional bile.



you are kidding right? the dumbasses in congress cant even fund needed programs like ZIKA research.
 

katzgar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
9,517
Reaction score
1,695
Location
prairieville, LA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What I meant was that the military has to be able to do it's own space launches using it's own systems...as it does now (military satellites).

Whereas the private sector should handle all non-military space explorations going forward (which NASA does now)...like going to the Moon again or to Mars or to the ISS.


no it doesnt, not true
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,671
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
As with most things, the private sector "innovates" off the back of public sector R&D.

Like aviation, the automobile, the light bulb, radio, television, the printing press, refrigeration, the telephone, the phonograph, vaccines, and antibiotics?

Those public sector innovations?
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you would be incorrect. do you remember the infamous o-ring?

No...you would be.

'"An accident rooted in history"[edit]
More broadly, the report also determined the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and its contractor, Morton Thiokol, to respond adequately to the design flaw. The Commission found that as early as 1977, NASA managers had not only known about the flawed O-ring, but that it had the potential for catastrophe. This led the Rogers Commission to conclude that the Challenger disaster was "an accident rooted in history."[2]

Flawed launch decision[edit]
The report also strongly criticized the decision making process that led to the launch of Challenger, saying that it was seriously flawed. There was a meeting the night before the launch to discuss any major pressing issues that might delay the launch further. Several of the Morton Thiokol engineers stated their concerns about the O-rings and urged the council to delay the launch. However, because there were no members of the safety council, the council decided to go ahead with the ill-fated launch. It is certain that even though higher-ranking members of the council did know about the issues, there were plenty of members that could have stopped the launch but decided not to. This was done in large part because of the management structure at NASA and the lack of major checks and balances which proved to be so fatal in this scenario.[3] The report concluded that:

…failures in communication… resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report


Sure, Morton Thiokol screwed up. But the major reason wsas because of NASA's 'Go Fever'.

NASA knew there was a major flaw that could be catastrophic, but ignored it anyway.

NASA was responsible for the launch...the buck stopped with them. And instead of being cautious, they rolled the dice - knowing there was a major safety fault - and the astronauts came up snake eyes.


And during the Columbia disaster, again NASA had a good idea what was going to happen, but ignored it and just wrote it off to a dangerous job.

Once again their Go Fever killed 7 brave people.

'The original shuttle operational specification said the orbiter thermal protection tiles were not designed to withstand any debris hits at all. Over time NASA managers gradually accepted more tile damage, similar to how O-ring damage was accepted. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board called this tendency the "normalization of deviance" — a gradual acceptance of events outside the design tolerances of the craft simply because they had not been catastrophic to date'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program#Accidents


'It was in the context of these organizational factors that the CAIB discussed the role of decisions made by Linda Ham, as well as by other NASA managers, in contributing to the disaster.

According to the book "Comm Check..." by William Harwood and Michael Cabbage, Linda Ham squelched requests for external photos to be taken after the requests had been sent by two individual departments at NASA. Engineers in these departments were concerned that the foam strike on the left wing, clearly captured by launch-day video recorded for every launch, had caused more damage than initially thought. Based on computer modeling later proven inadequate, Ham's mistaken belief was that the damage was not serious, and that at most it would merely lengthen the time necessary to refurbish Columbia between missions. Referring to the supposed minor damage in a review meeting, she was quoted as saying that "...there's nothing we can do about it anyway".[15] Ham decided to quash the request for high-resolution imaging of the shuttle, based on her belief that the damage was too minor to be of consequence.[15]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ham#Columbia_disaster_and_investigation_report

Again...this Go Fever bull****.


And that is largely because they are bureaucrats...they answer to no one.

The private sector cannot afford to make such public relations disasters for fear of losing their jobs. They take less chances not because they care more...but becasue they cannot afford NOT to care more.
 
Last edited:

Jesse Booth

we live in a society
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
11,036
Reaction score
6,696
Location
https://www.debatepolitics.com
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
What I meant was that the military has to be able to do it's own space launches using it's own systems...as it does now (military satellites).

Whereas the private sector should handle all non-military space explorations going forward (which NASA does now)...like going to the Moon again or to Mars or to the ISS.

That's fair.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
no it doesnt, not true

Yes it is true. There is nothing NASA does that the military could not do on it's own (with the private sector help, of course).

It even launches many of it's space missions from it's own air base...Vandenberg Air Base.

Name one military launch that would not be possible if NASA did not exist and it had been handled by the private sector?
 

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
44,256
Reaction score
28,817
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would say it is the exact opposite.

All NASA (amd the military) basically does is come up with guidelines/goals and they leave it to the private sector to design and built the products (and weapons) almost exclusively on their own.


For instance:

'The prime contractor for the program was North American Rockwell (later Rockwell International, now Boeing), the same company responsible for building the Apollo Command/Service Module. The contractor for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters was Morton Thiokol (now part of Alliant Techsystems), for the external tank, Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), and for the Space Shuttle main engines, Rocketdyne (now Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, part of United Technologies)'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program


Other then setting general guidelines and getting the dough...how did NASA 'develop' the Space Shuttle (or any other major rocket system for that matter)?

While yes, NASA sets the requirements for the component / subsystem that the contractor needs to design and build, that list of requirements is by far not just 'general guidelines'. My understanding is they are reams of paper detailing every small facet, feature, and requirement, including deadlines for prototype sample delivery as well as final delivery.

Haven't you heard about the businesses 'dealing with the government' as being driven by such documentation?
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Taking action on how long before this gets moved to the Conspiracy Forum?

Putcher money up.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's only a matter of time until China has nuclear missiles in space. We need better missiles, more of them, and better stealth satellite technology.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.

NASA should have been disbanded after Apollo ended, imo.

And before some/most of you go all 'NASA is wonderful - we need them'. Remember that the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle and just about every part of every rocket NASA has used was designed and built by - wait for it - the private sector.

NASA may have been great for getting to the Moon first. But since then, imo, they have done little more then waste money, try and find a reason to justify it's existence and get 14 brave people killed thanks to it's pathetic Go Fever.


Thoughts?

You should first find out at what point that space exploration would have become profitable...because NOBODY in the private sector is going to spend the billions of dollars on space exploration if there's no profit to be made in it.

What's more, are you also of the opinion that the knowledge mankind has gained from our space exploration - from the Voyager and Pioneer probes to the probes that visited all the other planets, from the Hubble Space Telescope to the SOHO solar probes (that give us early warnings of solar flares) are all a waste of taxpayer money? And the telescopes that map all asteroids that could collide with Earth - are these a waste of taxpayer money, too?

The private space industry is now looking at sending people to Mars in the next decade or so. Do you think that any of them would have spent a penny on this if we hadn't already sent probes to Mars to find out what the atmosphere's comprised of, what the landscape looks like, what the weather's like, and where the water is?

BUT let's just say we stopped with Apollo, just like you say. If the private space industry - much of which is funded with taxpayer dollars - didn't miraculously step up as you assume they would have, the human race would still find its way to Mars. Of course, they probably wouldn't be speaking English....
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,504
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And that is largely because they are bureaucrats...they answer to no one.

The private sector cannot afford to make such public relations disasters for fear of losing their jobs. They take less chances not because they care more...but becasue they cannot afford NOT to care more.

You claim that NASA bureaucrats answer to no-one (which sounds dubious, to say the least), and to your mind the obvious solution is to leave the bureaucrats in place and deepen the divide wherein bureaucrats and contractors can play the blame game against each other.

Rather than, say, ensuring more caution and accountability in the system which so far has worked much better than anything else on the planet has, despite some disasters.

I don't believe anyone has stopped the private sector from engaging in space exploration, have they? But as Glen and others have pointed out, there's never been any clear profit motive to do so until the public sector has well and truly beaten out a trail for them to follow.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Get NASA and it's bloated and wasteful bureaucracy out of the way and leave American space exploration to either a) the military or b) the private sector.



NASA should have been disbanded after Apollo ended, imo.

And before some/most of you go all 'NASA is wonderful - we need them'. Remember that the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle and just about every part of every rocket NASA has used was designed and built by - wait for it - the private sector.

NASA may have been great for getting to the Moon first. But since then, imo, they have done little more then waste money, try and find a reason to justify it's existence and get 14 brave people killed thanks to it's pathetic Go Fever.


Thoughts?

There is no doubt that the government should be no more involved in space exploration than it does with research on earth.
 
Top Bottom