NASA, do we really need it?

[Samineru]

Originally Posted by Kilgamayan

adj.

1. not your post

Yes it is, to understand the question we need to understand what the author meant by necessary, it could be any number of things, each with it's own debate associated.

[devonin]

Actually the OP said "needed" and made it quite clear what they were talking about.

They stated that NASA makes a habit of underbidding and buying out companies who want to offer private space programs, even if it means running at a loss, and was asking our opinions on whether NASA as an organisation is -needed- when there are clearly private companies who would -like- to do the same thing, but are consistantly prevented from doing so.

[Samineru]

Originally Posted by devonin

Actually the OP said "needed" and made it quite clear what they were talking about.

They stated that NASA makes a habit of underbidding and buying out companies who want to offer private space programs, even if it means running at a loss, and was asking our opinions on whether NASA as an organisation is -needed- when there are clearly private companies who would -like- to do the same thing, but are consistantly prevented from doing so.

In your post you explain no better than the OP did, you merely give some background information that to me seems to illustrate that NASA hurts the gobal space effort more than help it. Need can still be interpreted many ways though. If you surveyed a couple thousand people living in third world countries right now you would probably be hard pressed to find one saying that the US government spending seven million dollars on space is nessecary. If you talk to scientists or politicians however you will get a vastly different response.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Samineru

In your post you explain no better than the OP did, you merely give some background information that to me seems to illustrate that NASA hurts the gobal space effort more than help it. Need can still be interpreted many ways though. If you surveyed a couple thousand people living in third world countries right now you would probably be hard pressed to find one saying that the US government spending seven million dollars on space is nessecary. If you talk to scientists or politicians however you will get a vastly different response.

Your inability to use context clues to determine definitions is disappointing.

The OP explicitly asked that since other companies were trying to offer space exploration programs, is NASA necessary? This should scream at you that he is asking if NASA is required for successful space exploration, or can it be done without them and put into the hands of private organizations? Essentially, can private organizations do the job well enough that their benefits outweigh the benefits from having NASA do it?

[devonin]

Sometimes, (Fine, most of the time) the original posts that are made in Critical Thinking aren't exactly prime examples of the concept. This is why the forum regulars in the posts following, attempt to set the tone for the discussion in a more meaningful direction.

You'll notice that Kilroy_X and I tried to move the thread into a useful discussion of whether NASA should be allowed to persist as a monopoly, and whether the expenses it generates are worth any gains made, but as you should also have noticed, the thread managed to stay very random and non-useful.

You may also notice that you bumped a thread from a couple weeks ago that had clearly died, with a one line response to the original poster who almost certainly won't be along to look at it to answer your questions.

[Samineru]

First of all, I don't actually hold _all_ of the beliefs I state, I partially enjoy playing devil's advocate as well.

Originally Posted by devonin

You . . . bumped a thread from a couple weeks ago that had clearly died, with a one line response to the original poster who almost certainly won't be along to look at it to answer your questions.

When I came to CT I saw maybe 3 or 4 threads semi-active and this was still on the first page so I figured it was fair game.
When I asked the question though I wasn't asking only the original OP I was asking anyone who was interested in discussing the topic further, just to see what direction they wanted to take it in.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Samineru

First of all, I don't actually hold _all_ of the beliefs I state, I partially enjoy playing devil's advocate as well.


When I came to CT I saw maybe 3 or 4 threads semi-active and this was still on the first page so I figured it was fair game.
When I asked the question though I wasn't asking only the original OP I was asking anyone who was interested in discussing the topic further, just to see what direction they wanted to take it in.

In CT, most threads aren't really that active. There tends to be a few hot discussions until all ideas have been exhausted and the topic dies, then a new one is made.

Also, bumps in here aren't as blasphemous as in other forums, but it is expected that when a bump is made, it's with a well-thought out and valuable addition to the discussion, not just a one-line response.

[Samineru]

When I made that post I guess I saw it leading into something more instead of an argument about the post itself, sorry.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Samineru

When I made that post I guess I saw it leading into something more instead of an argument about the post itself, sorry.

Just remember, the more you post about a specific direction you want the thread to go in, the more likely it is to go in that direction. So if you wanted this thread to delve into the differing costs for the government and private organizations to perform space exploration, you would post as much as is meaningful about that.

[madmatt621]

Was a two week bump really necessary?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by madmatt621

Was a two week bump really necessary?

It's acceptable if there is a new stance or additional information to be shared on a topic, and is preferable to opening a new thread. It seems that the person who bumped the thread envisioned a certain discussion following what he stated, though the discussion left that path instantly.

[Coolgamer]

NASA is like shoving $16.8 billion in a rocket and sending it to explore new worlds when we still haven't solved half the problems on the one we live on.

[Maid]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

NASA is like shoving $16.8 billion in a rocket and sending it to explore new worlds when we still haven't solved half the problems on the one we live on.

Let's hear some amazing ideas on fixing*. *cough*

Anyways. We need space exploration development really badly, never know when something bad happens and a lifeline besides earth is certainly welcome.

[Mr.Nothing]

Oh my god.
How anti-american.
NASA spends money for exploration, so we can't be spied on or worse by foreign countries.

Originally Posted by Maid

NASA is essential but it needs competition. Monopolies are always bad in many ways.

NASA is not a company for making money.
It has a monopoly over nothing, considering it is the government.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Mr.Nothing

Oh my god.
How anti-american.
NASA spends money for exploration, so we can't be spied on or worse by foreign countries.

Uh...

NASA is not a company for making money.
It has a monopoly over nothing, considering it is the government.

No, it's not for making money, but it is an organization that produces something. As such, to try to get it to be less wasteful and more productive, it needs to have competition for the grants and donations it receives. And it DOES have a monopoly over something: space research.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by Maid

Let's hear some amazing ideas on fixing*. *cough*

Anyways. We need space exploration development really badly, never know when something bad happens and a lifeline besides earth is certainly welcome.

Foreign aid. Homeless shelters. Drug rehab clinics. Vaccine drives. Education. All are much better uses of the money, IMHO.

[Mr.Nothing]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Uh...



No, it's not for making money, but it is an organization that produces something. As such, to try to get it to be less wasteful and more productive, it needs to have competition for the grants and donations it receives. And it DOES have a monopoly over something: space research.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Ahem, Guido, NASA has no monopoly over space research. The definition of a monopoly is a business that has complete control over one industry, world-wide. You can't even begin to try and say that NASA spreads all the way to China, Russia, and Japan. All of which have major space research companies.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Mr.Nothing

Ahem, Guido, NASA has no monopoly over space research. The definition of a monopoly is a business that has complete control over one industry, world-wide. You can't even begin to try and say that NASA spreads all the way to China, Russia, and Japan. All of which have major space research companies.

Wrong. A monopoly is a business that has complete control over one industry in a particular area. For instance, DART has a monopoly on public transportation in Delaware.

NASA has a monopoly on space research in America. There is no other organization in that industry, therefore it is a monopoly. By allowing competing companies within America, all of them will improve simply out of the desire to be better and more important/appealing/whatever than the other guys. That's one of the driving forces behind capitalism, after all.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

Foreign aid. Homeless shelters. Drug rehab clinics. Vaccine drives. Education. All are much better uses of the money, IMHO.

Just listing off things you think they should dump money into is not the same thing as actually proposing means to solve the various problems facing America.

When you consider the cost involved in sending a rocket into space when that rocket is already paid for, the crew are already trained and equipped, and really you're mostly paying for fuel and wages for NASA personnel, perhaps you could make a better argument for reducing the ludicrous defense budget in order to generate the money you want going into social programs.

[lord_carbo]

Coolgamer: We could fix education by not dumping so much government money into it and making the market more competitive.

http://www.ideachannel.tv/includes/video3.php?id=6

Friedman suggests vouchers. Think of it as partially run by the government and partially run by the parents. It's a perfect way to initially fund all schools and allow schools to specifically appeal to certain educational needs. Think of it as an extension to honors and remedial classes in your own school, with more competition which strives additional innovation.