• Against: Countries should spend more on space exploration
    67 replies, posted
I would argue that in this recession billions and billions of dollars are being spent on these space programs while people starve but I support space exploration
Our current best propulsion system uses 80% of the weight for fuel. We'd need to economize to effectivly explore.
Imagine everyone killing eachother for land all over again.
[IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k12/Useful_Dave/10mMars.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k12/Useful_Dave/NPPSV.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k12/Useful_Dave/RadsEnv.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k12/Useful_Dave/CrewCompartments.jpg[/IMG] Nuclear Pulse Propulsion anyone? [url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760065935_1976065935.pdf[/url] <- Summary of a NASA study on it.
Use a pinewood derby car. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/South_park_pinewood_derby.jpg/225px-South_park_pinewood_derby.jpg[/img] ;)
[QUOTE=Boomersocks;17915822]--> [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=825495[/url] <--[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SeamanStaines;17915829]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] Still in testing stage, if you read carefully it's a 10-20 [b]MEGAWATT[/b] engine that could take us to Mars in 39 days. The one they tested is at 200 KILOWATT. Give it a 15-20 years. Also, you can't just fly to Mars like that just because you have a super strong engine. There are so many other factors.
[QUOTE=The golden;17915117]Space rockets use hydrogen. Hydrogen is like the most plentiful element in the entire universe.[/QUOTE] But it's almost never found by itself. Hydrogen's single electron makes it every eager to react with things. So, just because it's abundant doesn't mean it's easy to get. :eng101:
Arguing against space exploration, use the same bullshit excuses congress has used for the last twenty years to cut NASA's budget over and over again. Too expensive, waste of resources, etc.
Don't forget that it is rather perilous and that it causes muscle and bones degeneration.
As much as I disagree with the subject and feel space exploration is for the greater good of mankind, I strongly feel that to be good at debating, you must argue a side you disagree with. I've done this multiple times in school, and it is really fun to have people look at you in disbelief that you may have convinced them to believe something they would not normally believe. The problem, however, if you argue your point really well, you'll have people who are strongly convinced you are right and will never leave you alone. Anyways, you can explain the risks involved such as how many people have died from faulty components, etc. You can also explain how the money would be better spent exploring our current planet and helping people. You can argue that there is currently no real reason to explore space because even if we do find a planet that can support life, it would end up being light-years away, making it much to far away. Closing argument: "Why study the universe when we know little about ourselves. Looking up is not going to help us look in. People spend so much time looking out for answers when all the answers are upon us, all around us here on our home. We know so little about ourselves, but we seem to ignore that notion when we can be using the same money to further our society here on Earth. With all the money being spent on space exploration, millions of people could be treated for simple diseases that will ultimately kill them when untreated. Besides illness, we could use the money to invest in new fuels and aquaculture techniques that would make this planet greener and more sustainable for many generations to come. Over all, I feel that space exploration is not only a waste of valuable time, but valuable manpower and resources that can be used for the greater good here on our own planet."
Starvin Marvin in space
You could say that even with current technology, reaching pluto , would take about 7 1/2 years. reaching the asteroid belt at a good speed would take about 2 years , not to mention a ship that could take a crew their and back, keep them alive and keep them from going insane from some "pandorum" like condition. im a space buff ask me anything.
[QUOTE=Latias;17916344]I would argue that in this recession billions and billions of dollars are being spent on these space programs while people starve but I support space exploration[/QUOTE] And people who work on space programs are ___ed which means they can buy _____. I'll give you a hint, the first word is 3 letters, and the second word is four letters.
The only real reason to [b]not[/b] Explore space is Money. I can think of a million reasons to further humanity's venture into space, Finding life isn't one of them, but sustaining our own life is
Of course, the best argument that you can make against space exploration is that there is little to no immediate benefit to society. We still have war, famine, poverty, and pestilence, all problems that need to be addressed, and it may seem like a waste of good scientific minds to send stuff into space simply collecting data and stuff. Furthermore, we can't tell if the stuff we send up works until it is up there, and sending that stuff up is putting it in great peril, especially if it needs to come back down safely. I don't particularly agree with this point of view, but I can definitely identify the points they are getting at. But don't forget that this isn't just an argument against manned space missions. It is an argument against [I]space exploration.[/I] This includes any and all sorts of telescopes and satellites and probes and stuff. The most unassailable argument you could make would be to argue against the very premise of science and understanding itself. (i.e. take the retarded anti-intellectual Sarah Palin standpoint) If you can somehow convince people that science is stupid and worthless, then everything falls into place for your side of the argument because the other side kind of relies on this as their foundation.
[QUOTE=Cathbadh;17920009]Of course, the best argument that you can make against space exploration is that there is little to no immediate benefit to society. We still have war, famine, poverty, and pestilence, all problems that need to be addressed, and it may seem like a waste of good scientific minds to send stuff into space simply collecting data and stuff. Furthermore, we can't tell if the stuff we send up works until it is up there, and sending that stuff up is putting it in great peril, especially if it needs to come back down safely. I don't particularly agree with this point of view, but I can definitely identify the points they are getting at. But don't forget that this isn't just an argument against manned space missions. It is an argument against [I]space exploration.[/I] This includes any and all sorts of telescopes and satellites and probes and stuff. The most unassailable argument you could make would be to argue against the very premise of science and understanding itself. (i.e. take the retarded anti-intellectual Sarah Palin standpoint) If you can somehow convince people that science is stupid and worthless, then everything falls into place for your side of the argument because the other side kind of relies on this as their foundation.[/QUOTE] I don't think the argument goes as far as satellites meant for communications and monitoring the Earth. However if it does then the entire premise of the debate is exactly what you said: anti science.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia[/url]
there's no goddamned point in it? [editline]10:39PM[/editline] even in the vast hugeness of space, we still can't fucking help but litter
[QUOTE=Master117;17920183]I don't think the argument goes as far as satellites meant for communications and monitoring the Earth. However if it does then the entire premise of the debate is exactly what you said: anti science.[/QUOTE] The satellites used for communications and earth monitoring and mapping are still a direct result of space exploration. They are [I]great[/I] examples of how we have commercialized near-space. If you were to argue against space exploration, you would need to find some way to downplay the effect and importance of successful commercial expeditions into space, as they are certainly something your opponent will use to bolster the cause for space exploration. You need to convince the audience that the commercialization of space is perhaps a bad thing, and the benefit to humanity is limited to 40,000 km into space.
Steven Hawking is strongly for space exploration, urging that it is the only way for our species to survive. You cannot win against Steven Hawking.
I thought we had individual people and private companies making rocket ships for us? [editline]05:52PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;17921091]there's no goddamned point in it? [editline]10:39PM[/editline] even in the vast hugeness of space, we still can't fucking help but litter[/QUOTE] Wow how positive can you get?
[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KBIkPV0R14sC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=slavoj+zizek+%22gated+communities%22&source=bl&ots=6Ovsn1CrB4&sig=E8jwMMAea0W1kDzp8sAz0GbHysE&hl=en&ei=N-7cSt7qHcnYlAf_qIyiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gated%20communities&f=false]Click On Page '27'[/url] Space is the ultimate form of a gated community. Why save this planet when we can just go off into space and continue our consumption ways? Space allows us to consume (Zizek would say 'uber capitalism') and consume the life force of the universe. It separates the rich from the earth. While the poor are unable to pay for the shuttle ticket out of here, the Rich live in a utopia above the skies, keeping their dirty secret of exploitation away. At least that is what Zizek would say.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17921417][url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KBIkPV0R14sC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=slavoj+zizek+%22gated+communities%22&source=bl&ots=6Ovsn1CrB4&sig=E8jwMMAea0W1kDzp8sAz0GbHysE&hl=en&ei=N-7cSt7qHcnYlAf_qIyiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gated%20communities&f=false]Click On Page '27'[/url] Space is the ultimate form of a gated community. Why save this planet when we can just go off into space and continue our consumption ways? Space allows us to consume (Zizek would say 'uber capitalism') and consume the life force of the universe. It separates the rich from the earth. While the poor are unable to pay for the shuttle ticket out of here, the Rich live in a utopia above the skies, keeping their dirty secret of exploitation away. At least that is what Zizek would say.[/QUOTE] Some people would interpret that as a good thing, the alternative being SOCIALISM. :downs: Anyway, space exploration is something we [b]need[/b] to do. Maybe not in the short term, but the natural resources on this planet aren't going to last us forever. Hell, I doubt they'll last the next few centuries let alone millennia. Besides, curiosity is a trait that practically defines us as a species.
[QUOTE=Levithan II;17921356]I thought we had individual people and private companies making rocket ships for us? [editline]05:52PM[/editline] Wow how positive can you get?[/QUOTE] Bunnies are being used as biofuel. that any worse?
Hey guys remember how going to space led to discovering all sorts of new technologies? Like cell phones and better heat insulation and tons of other crap? Going into space isn't exactly a instant profit, but it's more likely then not that it will somehow benefit us everywhere. Hell the entire goal of NASA was to go into space, and using that as a challenge, it would create commercially viable technologies. Bone degeneration from space? Sounds like a good way to fund research into something that can help with it, because you know, not only astronauts get this. To all those saying we need to fix our problems here. Guess what? Humanity has always had issues, and probably always will. Going into space has definite possibilities for helping with problems on earth. [B]In general going into space is not about the destination but about how we get there too.[/B] [editline]07:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;17921745][B]Bunnies are being used as biofuel.[/B] that any worse?[/QUOTE] So?
We're going to have to ditch earth someday, we might as well smooth out the process now instead of rushing for reserch some number of years from now.
Our current level of technology limits what we can do in space, no matter how much money we dump into it. We can only get so far with simple chemical rockets and regular materials.
[QUOTE=Athena;17921294]Steven Hawking is strongly for space exploration, urging that it is the only way for our species to survive. You cannot win against Steven Hawking.[/QUOTE] Luckily for our OP, I don't think he is debating Hawking. Besides, Hawking actually has quite a bad history for being on the wrong side of the science lately. He's lost so many bets about what observations would show up in experiments. I believe we all know why space exploration is a good idea. I feel that it is a good exercise, however, to try to adjust your point of view to a position you don't necessarily identify with. Debating is a critically important skill to develop as it will make you undoubtedly more intelligent and more receptive to the point of view of others.
[QUOTE=jalit;17915903]Fuck fuel, electric propulsion all the way.[/QUOTE] Fuck electric propulsion, Nuclear Thermal Rockets :v:
The OP's debate topic is about spending [B]more[/B] on space exploration, not if exploring space is worth it or not. The best point you could probably use for this is that there isn't an immediate need for more exploration; as we aren't in any global crisis that requires us to find extra-planetary resources, or for us to evacuate somewhere. Thus, as long as there's at least some money going into space research and exploration, we'll eventually learn what we would have if we channelled more money into it, just at a later date. Arguments like the risk to human life isn't a good point, considering the majority of space exploration missions aren't manned, especially since robotic missions are cheaper and generally way more useful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.