Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
Subtlety. The end goal isn't just to take pictures. Mankind won't have to worry about taxes when the egg on their face is getting fried.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That wouldn't even put us back onto the moon for years, much less build space stations like the ISS. Do I really need to start breaking out the list of technological improvements used on Earth that are a direct result of the space program?Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium, originally estimated to cost 650 million, is going to cost over 1 billion dollars, with over 300 million provided by the city of Arlington. Their current stadium is in a completely functional state.Zombie_Affair wrote:
They broke the last one . Practice and $450,000,000m makes perfect.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Looks more like a photographical anomaly or someshit
I watched a CG animation of the landing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7399226.stm
The last stages look quite hard to pull off, I mean it's not really as soft as you'd think. Well done on pulling it off without breaking the thing.
You really think we have our priorities messed up?
I'm not American, so I can't comment. I was only replying to Mek, the last attempt at this project, was destroyed when trying to land. It costs $450m to try again, so I doubt they wanted this to fail...again.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That wouldn't even put us back onto the moon for years, much less build space stations like the ISS. Do I really need to start breaking out the list of technological improvements used on Earth that are a direct result of the space program?Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium, originally estimated to cost 650 million, is going to cost over 1 billion dollars, with over 300 million provided by the city of Arlington. Their current stadium is in a completely functional state.Zombie_Affair wrote:
They broke the last one . Practice and $450,000,000m makes perfect.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Looks more like a photographical anomaly or someshit
I watched a CG animation of the landing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7399226.stm
The last stages look quite hard to pull off, I mean it's not really as soft as you'd think. Well done on pulling it off without breaking the thing.
You really think we have our priorities messed up?
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I understand what the goal is -- I just don't understand why you'd rather spend tax money on exploring Mars than making sure we all have healthcare.Kmarion wrote:
Subtlety. The end goal isn't just to take pictures. Mankind won't have to worry about taxes when the egg on their face is getting fried.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
Yes, we do have our priorities that messed up. We have had our priorities messed up since the Cold War.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That wouldn't even put us back onto the moon for years, much less build space stations like the ISS. Do I really need to start breaking out the list of technological improvements used on Earth that are a direct result of the space program?Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.The new Dallas Cowboys Stadium, originally estimated to cost 650 million, is going to cost over 1 billion dollars, with over 300 million provided by the city of Arlington. Their current stadium is in a completely functional state.Zombie_Affair wrote:
They broke the last one . Practice and $450,000,000m makes perfect.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Looks more like a photographical anomaly or someshit
I watched a CG animation of the landing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7399226.stm
The last stages look quite hard to pull off, I mean it's not really as soft as you'd think. Well done on pulling it off without breaking the thing.
You really think we have our priorities messed up?
Again, I'd rather corporations foot the bill of research than the government, because corporations do it more efficiently.
I've never said that space exploration is baseless. I'm just saying the private sector could do it more efficiently.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because NASA should be run like a business, not like a research group.
I thought you thought corporations had to much power? Wouldn't this just create a new extremely large lobbyist group in Washington to rival and possibly surpass every other one?Turquoise wrote:
I've never said that space exploration is baseless. I'm just saying the private sector could do it more efficiently.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.
I care about both. I just think when looking at the end game of our species we need to use the resources we have available. Anything less goes against all the natural rules of survival.Turquoise wrote:
I understand what the goal is -- I just don't understand why you'd rather spend tax money on exploring Mars than making sure we all have healthcare.Kmarion wrote:
Subtlety. The end goal isn't just to take pictures. Mankind won't have to worry about taxes when the egg on their face is getting fried.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with Schuss on this one. If NASA wants to take pictures of Mars, they can do it without tax money involved.
This all sounds familiar..lol
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=60036&p=1
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No sir. When the goal is profit and not advancement the rules change. Oil companies would probably be the best example.Turquoise wrote:
I've never said that space exploration is baseless. I'm just saying the private sector could do it more efficiently.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. All space exploration should be privatized.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nope... The AARP and the military industrial complex will always be more powerful. I'm just saying that I'm a libertarian when it comes to space exploration.Commie Killer wrote:
I thought you thought corporations had to much power? Wouldn't this just create a new extremely large lobbyist group in Washington to rival and possibly surpass every other one?Turquoise wrote:
I've never said that space exploration is baseless. I'm just saying the private sector could do it more efficiently.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.
I know what you're saying, but I'd rather we focus on cleaning up this planet before infecting another.Kmarion wrote:
I care about both. I just think when looking at the end game of our species we need to use the resources we have available. Anything less goes against all the natural rules of survival.Turquoise wrote:
I understand what the goal is -- I just don't understand why you'd rather spend tax money on exploring Mars than making sure we all have healthcare.Kmarion wrote:
Subtlety. The end goal isn't just to take pictures. Mankind won't have to worry about taxes when the egg on their face is getting fried.
This all sounds familiar..lol
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=60036&p=1
Oil companies are indeed. Private oil companies are far more efficient than National Oil Companies. I thought I was the liberal and you were the conservative?Kmarion wrote:
No sir. When the goal is profit and not advancement the rules change. Oil companies would probably be the best example.Turquoise wrote:
I've never said that space exploration is baseless. I'm just saying the private sector could do it more efficiently.Kmarion wrote:
Do you know how much money NASA has brought in to the US treasury with royalties, patents, and licenses? Not too mention the medical advancements that have come per happenstance.
I guess I'm just very conservative when it comes to certain industries. I prefer oil and space be purely private.
That's very noble and everything but with the population tripling within the last couple hundred years the smart alternative is to look towards other celestial bodies. This will take hundred if not thousands of years to develop. If you want to argue for the whole of mankind sharing the expense I'm all for it.Turquoise wrote:
I know what you're saying, but I'd rather we focus on cleaning up this planet before infecting another.Kmarion wrote:
I care about both. I just think when looking at the end game of our species we need to use the resources we have available. Anything less goes against all the natural rules of survival.Turquoise wrote:
I understand what the goal is -- I just don't understand why you'd rather spend tax money on exploring Mars than making sure we all have healthcare.
This all sounds familiar..lol
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=60036&p=1
I'm not "one thing". You know that by now. I lean more conservative but I am moderate. When it comes to survival of civilization I have no problem crossing platforms. There are certainties in life. One of them is the earth will die.
Private oil companies are efficient (although most are operating below normal levels right now) but their days are numbered. Private companies only move forward when the economics dictate that they do. It's the wrong motivating force behind survival.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't see it as a matter of survival. I think Mother Nature will dictate how our species lives and dies, and I think that should be the extent of it. If we aren't capable of maintaining our existence on this planet in a pleasant and feasible way, then I don't see us as worthy of colonizing other planets.Kmarion wrote:
That's very noble and everything but with the population tripling within the last couple hundred rates the smart alternative is to look towards other celestial bodies. This will take hundred if not thousands of years to develop. If you want to argue for the whole of mankind sharing the expense I'm all for it.
I'm not "one thing". You know that by now. I lean more conservative but I am moderate. When it comes to survial of civilization I have no problem crossing platforms. There are certainties in life. One of them is the earth will die.
Private oil companies are efficient (although most are operating below normal levels right now) but their days are numbered. Private companies only move forward when the economics dictate that they do. It's the wrong motivating force behind survival.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I don't think we've proven ourselves here yet. I'm not sure if I like the idea of us spreading throughout space until we evolve more in a social and mental sense.
Space is endless. We can only destroy so much. I see nothing wrong with venturing out to space, NASA are only at the stage of re-search and pictures, it's not like they are forcing you to pack your bags and move to mars just yet.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as a matter of survival. I think Mother Nature will dictate how our species lives and dies, and I think that should be the extent of it. If we aren't capable of maintaining our existence on this planet in a pleasant and feasible way, then I don't see us as worthy of colonizing other planets.Kmarion wrote:
That's very noble and everything but with the population tripling within the last couple hundred rates the smart alternative is to look towards other celestial bodies. This will take hundred if not thousands of years to develop. If you want to argue for the whole of mankind sharing the expense I'm all for it.
I'm not "one thing". You know that by now. I lean more conservative but I am moderate. When it comes to survial of civilization I have no problem crossing platforms. There are certainties in life. One of them is the earth will die.
Private oil companies are efficient (although most are operating below normal levels right now) but their days are numbered. Private companies only move forward when the economics dictate that they do. It's the wrong motivating force behind survival.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I don't think we've proven ourselves here yet. I'm not sure if I like the idea of us spreading throughout space until we evolve more in a social and mental sense.
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-05-26 09:53:54)
I have nothing against exploration itself. I just have no interest in funding it. I'd rather my tax money go elsewhere.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Space is endless. We can only destroy so much. I see nothing wrong with venturing out to space, NASA are only at the stage of re-search and pictures, it's not like they are focing you to pack your bags and move to mars just yet.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as a matter of survival. I think Mother Nature will dictate how our species lives and dies, and I think that should be the extent of it. If we aren't capable of maintaining our existence on this planet in a pleasant and feasible way, then I don't see us as worthy of colonizing other planets.Kmarion wrote:
That's very noble and everything but with the population tripling within the last couple hundred rates the smart alternative is to look towards other celestial bodies. This will take hundred if not thousands of years to develop. If you want to argue for the whole of mankind sharing the expense I'm all for it.
I'm not "one thing". You know that by now. I lean more conservative but I am moderate. When it comes to survial of civilization I have no problem crossing platforms. There are certainties in life. One of them is the earth will die.
Private oil companies are efficient (although most are operating below normal levels right now) but their days are numbered. Private companies only move forward when the economics dictate that they do. It's the wrong motivating force behind survival.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I don't think we've proven ourselves here yet. I'm not sure if I like the idea of us spreading throughout space until we evolve more in a social and mental sense.
There may be things in space, other intelligent (or un-intelligent) life out there. There may be extra-ordinary things on some of these planets that could change our lives forever. NASA are doing a good job, it would be hard to say "oh yeah, we aren't funding you anymore lolz"...Turquoise wrote:
I have nothing against exploration itself. I just have no interest in funding it. I'd rather my tax money go elsewhere.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Space is endless. We can only destroy so much. I see nothing wrong with venturing out to space, NASA are only at the stage of re-search and pictures, it's not like they are focing you to pack your bags and move to mars just yet.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as a matter of survival. I think Mother Nature will dictate how our species lives and dies, and I think that should be the extent of it. If we aren't capable of maintaining our existence on this planet in a pleasant and feasible way, then I don't see us as worthy of colonizing other planets.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... I don't think we've proven ourselves here yet. I'm not sure if I like the idea of us spreading throughout space until we evolve more in a social and mental sense.
I'm not disputing the benefits of space research. I'm just saying I'd rather we devote all tax money to healthcare, defense, environmental protection, border security, fighting corporate corruption, moving toward alternative energy, and paying down the national debt.Zombie_Affair wrote:
There may be things in space, other intelligent (or un-intelligent) life out there. There may be extra-ordinary things on some of these planets that could change our lives forever. NASA are doing a good job, it would be hard to say "oh yeah, we aren't funding you anymore lolz"...Turquoise wrote:
I have nothing against exploration itself. I just have no interest in funding it. I'd rather my tax money go elsewhere.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Space is endless. We can only destroy so much. I see nothing wrong with venturing out to space, NASA are only at the stage of re-search and pictures, it's not like they are focing you to pack your bags and move to mars just yet.
Space is a low enough priority to me that I think we should keep it purely private. It's pretty much near the bottom of my priorities.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-26 10:01:16)
You would rather spend billions of tax on dropping bombs on countries, then spending those billions on space exploration?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not disputing the benefits of space research. I'm just saying I'd rather we devote all tax money to healthcare, defense, environmental protection, border security, fighting corporate corruption, moving toward alternative energy, and paying down the national debt.Zombie_Affair wrote:
There may be things in space, other intelligent (or un-intelligent) life out there. There may be extra-ordinary things on some of these planets that could change our lives forever. NASA are doing a good job, it would be hard to say "oh yeah, we aren't funding you anymore lolz"...Turquoise wrote:
I have nothing against exploration itself. I just have no interest in funding it. I'd rather my tax money go elsewhere.
Space is a low enough priority to me that I think we should keep it purely private. It's pretty much near the bottom of my priorities.
I think we should withdraw from Iraq ASAP. I'm very much against most war. But yes, I'm more concerned about our ability to bomb other countries than exploring space.Zombie_Affair wrote:
You would rather spend billions of tax on dropping bombs on countries, then spending those billions on space exploration?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not disputing the benefits of space research. I'm just saying I'd rather we devote all tax money to healthcare, defense, environmental protection, border security, fighting corporate corruption, moving toward alternative energy, and paying down the national debt.Zombie_Affair wrote:
There may be things in space, other intelligent (or un-intelligent) life out there. There may be extra-ordinary things on some of these planets that could change our lives forever. NASA are doing a good job, it would be hard to say "oh yeah, we aren't funding you anymore lolz"...
Space is a low enough priority to me that I think we should keep it purely private. It's pretty much near the bottom of my priorities.
Is this what the foundation of mankind is all about. I hope not.Turquoise wrote:
I think we should withdraw from Iraq ASAP. I'm very much against most war. But yes, I'm more concerned about our ability to bomb other countries than exploring space.Zombie_Affair wrote:
You would rather spend billions of tax on dropping bombs on countries, then spending those billions on space exploration?Turquoise wrote:
I'm not disputing the benefits of space research. I'm just saying I'd rather we devote all tax money to healthcare, defense, environmental protection, border security, fighting corporate corruption, moving toward alternative energy, and paying down the national debt.
Space is a low enough priority to me that I think we should keep it purely private. It's pretty much near the bottom of my priorities.
Kill or be killed... I'm afraid so. This is part of why I'd prefer we stay on this planet until that changes.Zombie_Affair wrote:
Is this what the foundation of mankind is all about. I hope not.Turquoise wrote:
I think we should withdraw from Iraq ASAP. I'm very much against most war. But yes, I'm more concerned about our ability to bomb other countries than exploring space.Zombie_Affair wrote:
You would rather spend billions of tax on dropping bombs on countries, then spending those billions on space exploration?
As a warning, I'm not trying to put you down (I'm actually really enjoying hearing things from a different point-of-view) but don't you think, in this day and age, somethings wrong when you are more concerned about bombing another country then exploration? Couldn't imagine our founding fathers going "heh, see all that land? Could be pretty cool stuff over there, maybe one day we can go check it out, but for now, got some people that needs extermination". (Lingo may differ..naturally).
Last edited by Zombie_Affair (2008-05-26 10:18:55)