Against: Countries should spend more on space exploration
67 replies, posted
Hello Facepunch,
I have a debate coming in my school the day after tomorrow and the topic is if [b]Countries should spend more on space exploration[/b]. I've been place in the team that is [i]against[/i] the idea. I am just beginning to start on it tonight and have to compile a report in 2 days and any help or links to sources that might help my team would be greatly appreciated.
So far, it looks like most of the people are [i]for[/i] it. At least, that's what I seem to be getting while browsing the web. I would really like some help, please.
Thank you!
It's costy, not mutch chance of exploring life and even if we do, what do we earn on it?
It's expensive as hell.
[QUOTE=Ihades;17914979]Hello Facepunch,
I have a debate coming in my school the day after tomorrow and the topic is if [b]Countries should spend more on space exploration[/b]. I've been place in the team that is [i]against[/i] the idea. I am just beginning to start on it tonight and have to compile a report in 2 days and any help or links to sources that might help my team would be greatly appreciated.
So far, it looks like most of the people are [i]for[/i] it. At least, that's what I seem to be getting while browsing the web. I would really like some help, please.
Thank you![/QUOTE]
We are talking billions here
Technological Limitations. It uses so much fuel to launch a rocket and with reserves running out it isn't the best of uses.
When an effective way of launching a rocket is found or a material and design that is feasible for a space elevator then maybe it might be time to start exploring, but until then we need to focus on other things.
We have too many problems here as it is. Leaving Earth would just bring our problems to space.
[QUOTE=The golden;17915117]Space rockets use hydrogen. Hydrogen is like the most plentiful element in the entire universe.[/QUOTE]
It's almost a shame it's incredibly explosive
We should focus on our problem on Earth bla bla bla, that kind of bullshit.
Oh, the recession is over already?
[QUOTE=Mattz333;17915071]Technological Limitations. It uses so much fuel to launch a rocket and with reserves running out it isn't the best of uses.
When an effective way of launching a rocket is found or a material and design that is feasible for a space elevator then maybe it might be time to start exploring, but until then we need to focus on other things.[/QUOTE]
Who gave you the idea that we used gasoline to fuel rockets?
[B]USE DEM PLASMA ROCKETS BOI![/b].
Being serious.
In my view, we should try space travel to continue all our research to help us learn about ourselves more, but there isn't much out there but a bunch of giant rocks and gas bubbles, we should look to the ocean for alternative houses instead of a cabin on the moon.
Beside, the ocean is massive and truly beautiful with very, very diverse species. Whats on the moon? Rocks, thats not very interesting. Besides, even if you find anything on a planet, chances are it's a simply cellular organism and not something like a wookie or anything intelligent.
I'd like to give arguments, but I'm personally for space travel. :-/
Just say about how we should try and understand earth before trying to understand the universe. So we should explore the seas and the like.
Well Hitler had the rocket research that made the space rocketry possible, so if you are for space travel you are a nazi.
:frog:
In any given space mission millions and millions of mechanisms have to function just right at just the right split second of the mission. If one of them malfunctions in anyway.
[img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/challenger-explosion.jpeg[/img]
That's a couple billion dollars of technology gone boom. Not to mention the crew on board, each of which cost millions upon millions to recruit and train, so replacing them isn't exactly easy nor cheap. It isn't like astronauts grow on trees.
I could trust NASA scientists when it comes to creating something that works right. They know what they are doing. But even if there is a .00000000000000000001% fuck-up rate the odds of any given mission going haywire are pretty high since there is so much that can go wrong.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17915763]In any given space mission millions and millions of mechanisms have to function just right at just the right split second of the mission. If one of them malfunctions in anyway.
[img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/challenger-explosion.jpeg[/img]
That's a couple billion dollars of technology gone boom. Not to mention the crew on board, each of which cost millions upon millions to recruit and train, so replacing them isn't exactly easy nor cheap. It isn't like astronauts grow on trees.
I could trust NASA scientists when it comes to creating something that works right. They know what they are doing. But even if there is a .00000000000000000001% fuck-up rate the odds of any given mission going haywire are pretty high since there is so much that can go wrong.[/QUOTE]
Don't see that much money going into oceanic research...
anyone want a city in the bottom of the sea rather than on the moon?
Just pull a Fox News and shift the argument to how NASA is a government agency and it advocates Socialism.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17915763]In any given space mission millions and millions of mechanisms have to function just right at just the right split second of the mission. If one of them malfunctions in anyway.
[img]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/challenger-explosion.jpeg[/img]
That's a couple billion dollars of technology gone boom. Not to mention the crew on board, each of which cost millions upon millions to recruit and train, so replacing them isn't exactly easy nor cheap. It isn't like astronauts grow on trees.
I could trust NASA scientists when it comes to creating something that works right. They know what they are doing. But even if there is a .00000000000000000001% fuck-up rate the odds of any given mission going haywire are pretty high since there is so much that can go wrong.[/QUOTE]
Who dares, wins.
currently, we need better engines for rockets
Since the farthest we can go is to the moon.
[QUOTE=KestasLT;17915794]currently, we need better engines for rockets
Since the farthest we can go is to the moon.[/QUOTE]
--> [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=825495[/url] <--
[QUOTE=KestasLT;17915794]currently, we need better engines for rockets
Since the farthest we can go is to the moon.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you haven't seen the news that plasma rocket has reached a stage where it could take us to Mars in 39 days.
[QUOTE=Beafman;17915785]Who dares, wins.[/QUOTE]
We're airborne we're meant to be surrounded.
[QUOTE=Beafman;17915785]Who dares, wins.[/QUOTE]
I'm not actually against space exploration because it allows us to develop better, more powerful, efficient and reliable technology with which to traverse space (and possibly terraform a couple planets while we're at it). The hit-or-miss success rate is just the most compelling argument I can see against it.
Screw them over and support space exploration instead! Then show them this video by carl sagan:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g[/media]
Fuck fuel, electric propulsion all the way.
Do your own damn research.
Space mining. Think about it. Some near-earth asteroids contain more metal than mankind has ever mined and they are only a few km long.
If someone established an industrial base in the asteroid belt the overall world economy would benefit greatly from it.
The only disadvantage is that the initial phase is costly but once manufacturing plants are established in outer space the costs would go down.
Switch teams.
We should sort out our economic shitstorm, war on terrorism, war on crime, oil crisis, and any other issues before we devote more money to space exploration.
We need to stabilize all our problems on here first.
Imagine how fucked up everything would be if everyone had to govern two planets.
Also, we'd start having those crazy wars for land all over again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.