NASA Budget Cuts

[iago]

I don't have the original source, but NASA's budget was recently cut severely.  This has meant delays and even cancellations of many of their missions, including retrieving a soil sample from Mars. 

How do you feel about this?

I personally have mixed feelings. 

On one hand, there are better things to spend money on than exploring space right now.  There are plenty of poor people and people who hate the Western World that could be helped. 

On the other hand. if the right discovery is made is space, it could be the dawn of a new era of mankind. 

[AntiVirus]

Well if they discover that the stuff that was in the rain was a living organism or what not, then NASA's budget would be raised again, I bet.

But right now, I don't really care about their budget, because I personally haven't heard much from their research.  So it can't be that fantastic.

[iago]

Well if they discover that the stuff that was in the rain was a living organism or what not, then NASA's budget would be raised again, I bet.

But right now, I don't really care about their budget, because I personally haven't heard much from their research.  So it can't be that fantastic.

Well, there was that whole thing about landing on the moon.  Remember that?

[Sidoh]

Well, there was that whole thing about landing on the moon.  Remember that?

It was fake!  haha, just kidding.

Personally, I don't agree with it.  Having a scientific nature nested in my mind makes my opinion pretty biased, though.  I think we should be doing everything we can to finding a way to get to Mars -- exploring our solar system to the furthest reaches possible.

[iago]

Well, there was that whole thing about landing on the moon.  Remember that?

It was fake!  haha, just kidding.

Personally, I don't agree with it.  Having a scientific nature nested in my mind makes my opinion pretty biased, though.  I think we should be doing everything we can to finding a way to get to Mars -- exploring our solar system to the furthest reaches possible.

I agree -- to a point.  How much money does it cost to send a rocket to Mars?  I don't have an exact number, but I'd say millions, or more.  Just think how much good it would do to put that money into something else. 

[Sidoh]

I agree -- to a point.  How much money does it cost to send a rocket to Mars?  I don't have an exact number, but I'd say millions, or more.  Just think how much good it would do to put that money into something else. 

I don't think we should be sending a rocket to Mars, personally.  I think we need to master other forms of propulsion before we make a cross-planetary voyage.

[iago]

I agree -- to a point.  How much money does it cost to send a rocket to Mars?  I don't have an exact number, but I'd say millions, or more.  Just think how much good it would do to put that money into something else. 

I don't think we should be sending a rocket to Mars, personally.  I think we need to master other forms of propulsion before we make a cross-planetary voyage.

I used the word "rocket" in the wrong way.  I was referring to anything.  Probes or whatever. 

Better question: how much did it cost to land that thing they have on Mars?  Then see the rest of my post for my conclusion

[Sidoh]

I used the word "rocket" in the wrong way.  I was referring to anything.  Probes or whatever. 

Better question: how much did it cost to land that thing they have on Mars?  Then see the rest of my post for my conclusion

Hehe, it's a very expensive program, no doubt.  I agree that there are definitely other areas the money could be spent in, but I strongly believe we need to get our asses moving in space probing/exploration.  The gravity probe that was circling earth for about ten years measuring the effects of General Relativity finished its data collection a few months ago.  The article in Science News I read (which, for the life of me, I'm now unable to locate) said it would take about a year to sift through all of the data.  I'm excited to see the results!  It should be interesting!

[iago]

It's cool, no doubt.  Maybe even useful.  But I'd argue that it's not necessary.  Maybe some day in the future when the US finally solves its internal problems (crime, poverty, national dept, cockroaches) it will be useful.  But for now, it seems like the US should be looking inward, not outward, for places to spend money. 

[zorm]

The cost of sending the two MERs to Mars was $800 million for the total package.

We can't exactly wage a war to remove corrupt governments so that the poor people can actually get the needed asistance for $800 million so I'd say its justified to spend it on space.

People will always say there are better things to spend money on and there probably are but as the saying goes you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Space exploration should get enough funding so that proper exploration can be carried out. However, at the same time it needs to be a realistic amount so that scientists are forced to prove the value of a mission before we dedicate the time and funding to making it happen. Also limited fundings limits wasted $ because every $ becomes more valuable to the agency.

You also have to remember that space exploration is risky business, look at the Europeans and what they have spent on sending failed missions to Mars. For that matter you can look at many of our earlier missions to Mars which crashed and burned. If billions is spent on a project and it catastrophicly fails because of a single bad component who is going to take the ultimate blame?

[GameSnake]

It's cool, no doubt.  Maybe even useful.  But I'd argue that it's not necessary.  Maybe some day in the future when the US finally solves its internal problems (crime, poverty, national dept, cockroaches) it will be useful.  But for now, it seems like the US should be looking inward, not outward, for places to spend money. 

Most americans are not poor and are proud of thier country. If you don't work you don't eat. I have been to Canada and everything is really expensive there, the people were rude to us.

[MyndFyre]

Most americans are not poor and are proud of thier country. If you don't work you don't eat. I have been to Canada and everything is really expensive there, the people were rude to us.

Sounds like France!

[iago]

It's cool, no doubt.  Maybe even useful.  But I'd argue that it's not necessary.  Maybe some day in the future when the US finally solves its internal problems (crime, poverty, national dept, cockroaches) it will be useful.  But for now, it seems like the US should be looking inward, not outward, for places to spend money. 

Most americans are not poor and are proud of thier country. If you don't work you don't eat. I have been to Canada and everything is really expensive there, the people were rude to us.

Huh?  Canada is well known as one of the friendliest places to be (unless you're an asshole first, but that's just common sense), and stuff is actually cheaper here because of the value of your dollar.  Perhaps you don't understand what an exchange rate is? 

Also, there are a lot of poor people in your country.  12% of your citizens are considered to be below the poverty line (source).  That's a lot. 

And what can extra money be used for?  How about police to clean up the slums?  I've heard a lot of horror stories about certain parts of north-eastern states. 

But let me make sure we're clear: you're arguing that your country is doing well and that you have billions of dollars to waste?  I just wanted to make sure that's your stance... I figured the opposition in this debate wouldn't say "nobody needs money!", more like "space is important".

[Blaze]

My Engineering teacher took two classes out and let us all discuss this (This might not be the exact one, but there is really something like this coming).  I'd much perfer that over landing on Mars.

[GameSnake]

It's cool, no doubt.  Maybe even useful.  But I'd argue that it's not necessary.  Maybe some day in the future when the US finally solves its internal problems (crime, poverty, national dept, cockroaches) it will be useful.  But for now, it seems like the US should be looking inward, not outward, for places to spend money. 

Most americans are not poor and are proud of thier country. If you don't work you don't eat. I have been to Canada and everything is really expensive there, the people were rude to us.

Huh?  Canada is well known as one of the friendliest places to be (unless you're an asshole first, but that's just common sense), and stuff is actually cheaper here because of the value of your dollar.  Perhaps you don't understand what an exchange rate is? 

Also, there are a lot of poor people in your country.  12% of your citizens are considered to be below the poverty line (source).  That's a lot. 

And what can extra money be used for?  How about police to clean up the slums?  I've heard a lot of horror stories about certain parts of north-eastern states. 

But let me make sure we're clear: you're arguing that your country is doing well and that you have billions of dollars to waste?  I just wanted to make sure that's your stance... I figured the opposition in this debate wouldn't say "nobody needs money!", more like "space is important".

My stance is that your being a hypocrite. If you're saying we have pverty problems, than (source): 15.9% below poverty line means you have worse poverty problems than US. The exchange rate means your prices are higher than us. Ciggerettes for example cost $2.00 more than what we pay in Michigan, milk in Canada was ~$6.00 USA, when it's only $2.70 at my local store. The things we needed were indeed more expensive than what we pay at home.

 Lastly, the first time we tried to get in to go camping/fishing, we we're denied because my dad had a personal possesion charge when he was 19 yrs old!  The second time we went, the people kept talking crap about USA and how it sucks, how americans suck and general rudeness, this is my personal experiance of Canada, I am not just making it up: they were very rude people.

[Blaze]

Hehe, was it Ontario you were in, GS?  Most of us... really don't like you guys.

[iago]

My stance is that your being a hypocrite. If you're saying we have pverty problems, than (source): 15.9% below poverty line means you have worse poverty problems than US.

How's that make me a hypocrite?  If I was arguing that Canada should have (more of) a space program, then I would be.  But this isn't about Canada's lack or abundance of money or space stuff.  This is about NASA, which is not canadian. 

The exchange rate means your prices are higher than us. Ciggerettes for example cost $2.00 more than what we pay in Michigan, milk in Canada was ~$6.00 USA, when it's only $2.70 at my local store. The things we needed were indeed more expensive than what we pay at home.

Exchange rate means your money is worth more.  Where in Canada were you, anyway?  I pay about $2.50 for a gallon of milk here, which is $2.20 in your dollars.  Cigarettes are more expensive here, for sure, and so is alcohol.  But that's because of taxes and it's not a general rule. 

Lastly, the first time we tried to get in to go camping/fishing, we we're denied because my dad had a personal possesion charge when he was 19 yrs old!  The second time we went, the people kept talking crap about USA and how it sucks, how americans suck and general rudeness, this is my personal experiance of Canada, I am not just making it up: they were very rude people.

Denying people with a criminal record is understandable.  There are many countries who do that.  What's the solution?  Don't get a criminal record.  I'm happy that my country keeps out criminals

And yeah, Canadians can be rude to people who they know are Americans.  People around here have a pretty dim view of the US.  (Blaze said the same thing while I was typing).  The fact of the matter is, pretty much the entire world hates the US.  Your country has a bad attitude, and it pisses people off.  Get over it, and don't tell people you're American next time

But in any case, please try to stay on topic.  This thread isn't about whether the US or Canada is better, it's about the US having problems (which you do, I don't think you can deny) that could be solved with extra money.  Please keep this on NASA and American stuff, this isn't about comparing countries.  Thanks. 

[MyndFyre]

it's about the US having problems (which you do, I don't think you can deny) that could be solved with extra money. 

I don't think many of the problems in the US, including poverty, could be solved by extra money.  Rarely is throwing money at a problem the solution (example: public education).  Sometimes it is (example: alternative fuels). 

I note that you employed a very common liberal argument fallacy: you're right, I cannot deny that the US has problems, but by grouping that statement with "that could be solved with extra money," you're attempting to make me agree with the entire statement.  Fortunately, I can line-item veto that last portion. 

[GameSnake]

My stance is that your being a hypocrite. If you're saying we have pverty problems, than (source): 15.9% below poverty line means you have worse poverty problems than US.

How's that make me a hypocrite?  If I was arguing that Canada should have (more of) a space program, then I would be.  But this isn't about Canada's lack or abundance of money or space stuff.  This is about NASA, which is not canadian. 

I think having the ambition to explore new frontiers is great. How are you being a hypodcrite?

Also, there are a lot of poor people in your country.  12% of your citizens are considered to be below the poverty line (source).  That's a lot. 

You go off topic, and you tried to make this a statistic thing. Then by statistics you're country is more below the poverty lines then we are. You probably couldn't afford a decen space program like we could, if thats any relevance, you were being a hyprocrite.

MyndFyre edit: fixed [/qoute] tag.

[iago]

I don't think many of the problems in the US, including poverty, could be solved by extra money.  Rarely is throwing money at a problem the solution (example: public education).  Sometimes it is (example: alternative fuels). 

I note that you employed a very common liberal argument fallacy: you're right, I cannot deny that the US has problems, but by grouping that statement with "that could be solved with extra money," you're attempting to make me agree with the entire statement.  Fortunately, I can line-item veto that last portion. 

You're committing a common fallacy as well.  Because some liberals may have made that argument, you attribute it to all liberals.  I forget what that's called, but it's similar to Demagogy, or maybe a Hasty Generalization.  Either way, it is possible for liberals to not use that argument, and it is possible for people who aren't liberals to use the argument.  There isn't much correlation. 

In any case, do you believe that having a stronger police force, for instance, wouldn't help anything?

Of course everything can't be solved with money, but I think that there are significant improvements that could be made.  For example, reducing (or slowing) your national debt. 

Also, there are a lot of poor people in your country.  12% of your citizens are considered to be below the poverty line (source).  That's a lot.  [/qoute]
You go off topic, and you tried to make this a statistic thing. Then by statistics you're country is more below the poverty lines then we are. You probably couldn't afford a decen space program like we could, if thats any relevance, you were being a hyprocrite.

I may be fat, but I can still think that people who are slightly thinner than me are fat.  Just because another country (it doesn't even matter which one!) has a higher poverty rate does not mean that yours doesn't.  The unemployment rate of my country doesn't matter, at all, in this argument.

[Blaze]

You think that not being able to get into a park with a criminal record is bad?  They won't let Canadians with a criminal record into the damn country!

This is getting offtopic, so I'll stop.

[iago]

You think that not being able to get into a park with a criminal record is bad?  They won't let Canadians with a criminal record into the damn country!

This is getting offtopic, so I'll stop.

I thought that's what he meant?

[MyndFyre]

You're committing a common fallacy as well.  Because some liberals may have made that argument, you attribute it to all liberals.  I forget what that's called, but it's similar to Demagogy, or maybe a Hasty Generalization.  Either way, it is possible for liberals to not use that argument, and it is possible for people who aren't liberals to use the argument.  There isn't much correlation. 

It's a hasty generalization, but I wouldn't exactly call it "hasty" -- it's something that I've noticed as a relatively high correlation.  Correlation != causation, so you're right -- others may make the argument too.  I didn't say they don't.  I just said it happens frequently with libs.  

In any case, do you believe that having a stronger police force, for instance, wouldn't help anything?

What are you suggesting it would help?  Police are like a commodity -- they follow the laws of supply and demand.  Particularly with municipal services deemed "essential" (such as police and fire), the money will come from somewhere, because the demand is inelastic and the local government is derelict in its duties if it does not supply these services.

Of course everything can't be solved with money, but I think that there are significant improvements that could be made.  For example, reducing (or slowing) your national debt. 

Well, like I said over @ vL, I think that a national debt is largely inconsequential over long time periods when operating under the assumption that a national economy is perpetual.  So I don't think that slowing or reducing the national debt is necessarily an improvement.

[iago]

It's a hasty generalization, but I wouldn't exactly call it "hasty" -- it's something that I've noticed as a relatively high correlation.  Correlation != causation, so you're right -- others may make the argument too.  I didn't say they don't.  I just said it happens frequently with libs. 

Then saying it is invalid, and is basically a Ad Hominem-type statement. 

What are you suggesting it would help?  Police are like a commodity -- they follow the laws of supply and demand.  Particularly with municipal services deemed "essential" (such as police and fire), the money will come from somewhere, because the demand is inelastic and the local government is derelict in its duties if it does not supply these services.

You're right, but I disagree with the conclusion that you imply.  I have heard many stories about slums in some American cities where there is tons of crime and gangs rule.  Isn't there some way to throw money at that problem?  I don't know how that type of problem can be solved, perhaps you have some ideas?  That's not sarcastic, it's serious

Well, like I said over @ vL, I think that a national debt is largely inconsequential over long time periods when operating under the assumption that a national economy is perpetual.  So I don't think that slowing or reducing the national debt is necessarily an improvement.

True, but that's just one example.  It seems like it would help in at least some way to slow the flow of the debt, though. 

I'm sure there has to be programs of some sort that money can be put into to improve the country more than space travel.  I just don't know what your citizens need, I can name a few things that Canada needs, though

[Hitmen]

The second time we went, the people kept talking crap about USA and how it sucks, how americans suck and general rudeness, this is my personal experiance of Canada, I am not just making it up: they were very rude people.

Wow, that sounds exactly like what people say about Canada here. Not surprising.

I'm sure there has to be programs of some sort that money can be put into to improve the country more than space travel.  I just don't know what your citizens need, I can name a few things that Canada needs, though

Ok fine, take the money, I'm sure you guys need it more that we do.

(Woohoo, defending canada and making fun of it in the same post. I rule)

[Blaze]

You think that not being able to get into a park with a criminal record is bad?  They won't let Canadians with a criminal record into the damn country!

This is getting offtopic, so I'll stop.

I thought that's what he meant?

I'm thinking that Gamesnake wasn't allowed into a park, because his dad's record.  A Canadian is not allowed into the States if they have a record.  Enter country > Enter Park

[GameSnake]

Atleast Blaze was honost and just outright said people in his area don't like Americans. Atleast thats an honost answer, because thats how we felt when in Canada (we were in Toronto btw).

[Blaze]

Hah, the funny thing is, that city is most like America, yet, it's like the hate capital.

I live like, 30/40 minutes away from Toronto.

[iago]

Atleast Blaze was honost and just outright said people in his area don't like Americans. Atleast thats an honost answer, because thats how we felt when in Canada (we were in Toronto btw).

Are you implying that I didn't?  Here's what I said:

And yeah, Canadians can be rude to people who they know are Americans.  People around here have a pretty dim view of the US.  (Blaze said the same thing while I was typing).  The fact of the matter is, pretty much the entire world hates the US.  Your country has a bad attitude, and it pisses people off.  Get over it, and don't tell people you're American next time

It's not nice, but it's true. 

In any case, it's terribly off-topic in this thread.  I'm trying to talk about the US, purely, not the difference between US and other countries which you keep trying to pull into.  I know some people here (I won't mention names names) whine about threads going off-topic, so let's try to keep this one headed in the right direction, ok?

[igimo1]

I may be fat, but I can still think that people who are slightly thinner than me are fat.  Just because another country (it doesn't even matter which one!) has a higher poverty rate does not mean that yours doesn't.  The unemployment rate of my country doesn't matter, at all, in this argument.

Ah, but the point here is that you should fix your own problems before criticizing other's.


Our amount of debt is pretty minor. I'm reasonably sure we could clean it up and have surplus cash floating around if Bush had more democratic ideals.

[GameSnake]

Exactly. If the poverty rate wasn't part of the argument, why did you quote a source, and when given a retort, said it wasn't needed?

[MyndFyre]

Our amount of debt is pretty minor. I'm reasonably sure we could clean it up and have surplus cash floating around if Bush had more democratic ideals.

You mean "libertarian" ideals.

[iago]

I may be fat, but I can still think that people who are slightly thinner than me are fat.  Just because another country (it doesn't even matter which one!) has a higher poverty rate does not mean that yours doesn't.  The unemployment rate of my country doesn't matter, at all, in this argument.

Ah, but the point here is that you should fix your own problems before criticizing other's.

That doesn't make it any less of a problem for the other person, though.  And I'm not saying "you suck because you're fat," I'm saying "look, here's something that you're doing that you might consider stopping."  Not really the same thing, if you ask me. 

[AntiVirus]

I may be fat, but I can still think that people who are slightly thinner than me are fat.  Just because another country (it doesn't even matter which one!) has a higher poverty rate does not mean that yours doesn't.  The unemployment rate of my country doesn't matter, at all, in this argument.

Ah, but the point here is that you should fix your own problems before criticizing other's.

That doesn't make it any less of a problem for the other person, though.  And I'm not saying "you suck because you're fat," I'm saying "look, here's something that you're doing that you might consider stopping."  Not really the same thing, if you ask me. 

I think the reason people criticize other peoples problems are because it's a way to ignore their own.  So even if it shouldn't be done, it still will be. 

For example, America loves to go into other countries and help them fix their problems, but when it comes down to it we have just as many problems that we should take care of first.  It's a defense mechanism of sort that takes their mind of their own problems and focuses on others.

But don’t get me wrong, I complete support the idea of helping others.

[MyndFyre]

For example, America loves to go into other countries and help them fix their problems, but when it comes down to it we have just as many problems that we should take care of first.  It's a defense mechanism of sort that takes their mind of their own problems and focuses on others.

I fully believe that most people (> 66%) in America who are in povery are such because of their own decisions.  People in Iraq, for instance, were not put in mass graves because of a decision of their own other than to want freedom.  I think there is greater moral authority for helping them than for helping other Americans who have messed themselves up.

[AntiVirus]

For example, America loves to go into other countries and help them fix their problems, but when it comes down to it we have just as many problems that we should take care of first.  It's a defense mechanism of sort that takes their mind of their own problems and focuses on others.

I fully believe that most people (> 66%) in America who are in povery are such because of their own decisions.  People in Iraq, for instance, were not put in mass graves because of a decision of their own other than to want freedom.  I think there is greater moral authority for helping them than for helping other Americans who have messed themselves up.

I completely agree with you.

The only reason I said that was because America does have problems of our own that we need to take care of, which is undeniable, regardless of how bad they are.  And by going to other countries we are ignoring our own problems.

But, I would have to say that’s for the best when the other countries problems are much, much worse.

[iago]

So then, by your statistic, the 34% of people that are below the poverty line are screwed. 

I'll round numbers down to account for possible in accuricies. 

The US has a population of about 290,000,000.  10% are below the poverty line.  That's 29,000,000 people.  Of them, according to your statistic, about 30% are stuck there.  That's about 8,700,000 people.  That's a lot of people. 

In any case, this thread isn't about Iraq.  How about the extra money from NASA be used to feed starving kids in third world countries or send food/whatever to Iraq?  That sounds like a good use of money to me, better than sending rockets up, which is the point here. 

[AntiVirus]

So then, by your statistic, the 34% of people that are below the poverty line are screwed. 

I'll round numbers down to account for possible in accuricies. 

The US has a population of about 290,000,000.  10% are below the poverty line.  That's 29,000,000 people.  Of them, according to your statistic, about 30% are stuck there.  That's about 8,700,000 people.  That's a lot of people. 

In any case, this thread isn't about Iraq.  How about the extra money from NASA be used to feed starving kids in third world countries or send food/whatever to Iraq?  That sounds like a good use of money to me, better than sending rockets up, which is the point here. 

Yeah, it would be a better use of the money, but do you think it would actually help that many people in third world countries?  Eventually the people will become dependant on us and if that happens whenever we do decide to withdrawl our money from that purpose and put it back into the NASA they will be screwed..

If anything we should give the money to a government of a third world country and give them tips on how to manage their country.  And then slowly withdrawl so they don't become dependent.


[edit]
My friend was reading this next to me and he said something that I think is a really good point.

"The only way to fix anything is to educate people".  We should give money to people who will build schools and pay for teachers in these third world countries and that way they can eventually help themselves.

[iago]

"The only way to fix anything is to educate people".  We should give money to people who will build schools and pay for teachers in these third world countries and that way they can eventually help themselves.

Definitely true.  But if they're starving to death, school isn't going to help them much.  Now if they had some food AND school, then maybe stuff would improve

[AntiVirus]

"The only way to fix anything is to educate people".  We should give money to people who will build schools and pay for teachers in these third world countries and that way they can eventually help themselves.

Definitely true.  But if they're starving to death, school isn't going to help them much.  Now if they had some food AND school, then maybe stuff would improve

Well all the schools that I have been to feed their students.

[MyndFyre]

So then, by your statistic, the 34% of people that are below the poverty line are screwed. 

I'll round numbers down to account for possible in accuricies. 

The US has a population of about 290,000,000.  10% are below the poverty line.  That's 29,000,000 people.  Of them, according to your statistic, about 30% are stuck there.  That's about 8,700,000 people.  That's a lot of people. 

In any case, this thread isn't about Iraq.  How about the extra money from NASA be used to feed starving kids in third world countries or send food/whatever to Iraq?  That sounds like a good use of money to me, better than sending rockets up, which is the point here. 

I thought you were a Trekkie!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

50,000,000 > 8,700,000.

[iago]

So then, by your statistic, the 34% of people that are below the poverty line are screwed. 

I'll round numbers down to account for possible in accuricies. 

The US has a population of about 290,000,000.  10% are below the poverty line.  That's 29,000,000 people.  Of them, according to your statistic, about 30% are stuck there.  That's about 8,700,000 people.  That's a lot of people. 

In any case, this thread isn't about Iraq.  How about the extra money from NASA be used to feed starving kids in third world countries or send food/whatever to Iraq?  That sounds like a good use of money to me, better than sending rockets up, which is the point here. 

I thought you were a Trekkie!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

50,000,000 > 8,700,000.

You have it wrong again.  I watch Star Trek.  There's a difference. 

In either case, help the 9 million in the US or 50 million in whatever you're talking about.  I don't care (in this thread).  But are you agreeing that the money currently spent on space exploration could be better spent somehow?