Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Until 'not right at this time' turns into 'WE ABSOLUTELY NEED IT RIGHT NOW!', but such is politics.

That said, commercial/private space exploration (and exploitation) companies might take up the slack, but even the biggest commercial/private space company doesn't have the kind of budget that NASA gets. Plus while NASA doesn't have to worry about profits from whatever source, commercial/private companies do. This allows NASA to do the really ambitious and risky stuff that commercial/private companies would have a harder time doing or taking the hit for.

Obviously there will always be pioneers and some willing to push the limit, but being government funded has some advantages over privately funded. Disadvantages too, like being limited by politicians saying what they want funded whereas private ventures aren't restricted like that.

[Starver]

The asteroid redirect mission has very little scientific gain (because sending a probe can do everything we need for a fraction of the cost) and it would be a near-Earth asteroid, which generally are poor in exotic minerals.

First of all, Proof Of Concept. Secondly, as a sample (nearby-)return mission, it'll be more useful than a mere few grammes, maybe kilogrammes, of matter to analyse.

Thirdly, and pretty importantly as far as I'm concerned:

The robotic mission also will demonstrate planetary defense techniques to deflect dangerous asteroids and protect Earth if needed in the future.

[smjjames]

The asteroid redirect mission has very little scientific gain (because sending a probe can do everything we need for a fraction of the cost) and it would be a near-Earth asteroid, which generally are poor in exotic minerals.

First of all, Proof Of Concept. Secondly, as a sample (nearby-)return mission, it'll be more useful than a mere few grammes, maybe kilogrammes, of matter to analyse.

Thirdly, and pretty importantly as far as I'm concerned:

The robotic mission also will demonstrate planetary defense techniques to deflect dangerous asteroids and protect Earth if needed in the future.

Republicans don't see it that way, for some reason. Though I guess putting a pseudo-military label on it (because of the word 'defense') might make them a bit more interested.

[Starver]

A higher priority in my opinion, is creating permanent, self-sustaining settlements on other bodies.

From the same page as linked to a moment ago...

Perhaps most importantly, NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission will greatly advance NASA’s human path to Mars, testing the capabilities needed for a crewed mission to the Red Planet in the 2030s.

But, for some reason, I put you in the "so why are we going into space anyway?" camp, on this conversation alone.

[RedKing]

The only reason you guys are mad about this is because Trump cancelled it. If some administrator over at NASA canceled it, nobody would give a shit.

The only reason you're in favor of this cancellation is because Trump cancelled it.  If he had left the funding intact, you wouldn't give a shit.

See, two can play that game.

And your previous assertion that you're judging all of Trump's actions in comparison to an alternative imagined history where Clinton is President means you are just saying "BUT HER EMAILS" in a variety of ways.

Also, you keep raising something you think Trump did right, then when others raise all sorts of counterclaims, you retreat into "I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just saying..."

That is some grade-A passive-aggressive bullshit, brodude.

[origamiscienceguy]

I actually thought it was a stupid idea from the start. Sure, it was fun to move the asteroids around in Kerbal Space Program, but in real life, it has little practical benefit compared to the massive cost it would entail.

I will concede that if anybody other than trump cancelled it, I probably wouldn't have heard of it, and would therefore not give a shit.

Also, when comparing to Hillary, I'm pro-life, and I think you can see one example for why a Clinton Presidancy would be shit for me, much like how you feel about Trump right now.

There are several things Trump has done that I disagree with (eg. Travel Ban, His handling of Russia, his Tweets, and to some extent, his Climate things.) But If you look at my list of things I like, most, if not all, of those would not exist if Hillary won.

[Starver]

I actually thought it was a stupid idea from the start. Sure, it was fun to move the asteroids around in Kerbal Space Program, but in real life, it has little practical benefit compared to the massive cost it would entail.

I see you have ignored all the actual benefits mentioned, then.

Pro-life..?


You have opinions, I get that. I don't think they hold water, though, and in the face of my own stated reasonings being blanked (rather than actually countered by alternate viewpoints, however disputable) I'm not sure there's a practical dialogue possible. Have fun. Be prepared to be disappointed with how the future unfolds (as some of us are already, with the present)...

[origamiscienceguy]

If you want to debate abortion, I would certainly be willing to do that.

[smjjames]

I'd wonder whether you're also pro-choice because the whole central issue is letting woman decide what to do with their bodies, but I'd prefer that the abortion topic gets shunted to either the religion thread or the sexuality thread. Provided that any discourse doesn't get out of control.

[origamiscienceguy]

I agree, although I don't frequent those threads often.

I apologize if I came off as aggressive. I originally just meant to explain trumps approval rating as best as I could, but I must have gone too far.

[Starver]

If you want to debate abortion, I would certainly be willing to do that.

I doubt either of us can bring anything new to the yes/no debate. And government (and others) should probably stay out of the issue that ought to be the woman's choice, so I really don't support a load of old men punishing organisations providing a broad-spectrum of vital healthcare if they even think of helping women finding resources linked to abortion.

But I can't stop you giving your own reasoning, and if it's actually politically-orientated it might even be worthy of this thread rather than finding/creating one dedicated to the medical/moral/etc aspects.

(Ninjaed. x2)

[Reelya]

Here's your data on being "pro" fucking "life"

http://www.businessinsider.com/as-many-as-240000-women-have-tried-diy-abortions-in-texas-2016-5?IR=T
Up to a quarter of a million HOME abortions in Texas because of anti-abortions laws. That amounts to large amounts of DEATH because of preventing women from accessing needed medical treatment.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2016/09/28/secrecy-bad-data-cloak-reasons-texas-surge-pregnancy-related-deaths
Maternal death rate doubled when Texas brought in anti-abortion rules, although you're not allowed to look at the state data in detail because it's kept secret. All we know is that the Texan maternal death rate was about the US average then suddenly spiked up to twice that. No explanation given.

[smjjames]

See why I wanted to avoid it? And Reelya, it'd be more productive to aim that broadside at actual politicians as far as discourse and discussion of it goes.

[origamiscienceguy]

First off, I think we can all agree that the situation where a woman has a baby, but doesn't want it is pretty Shit. I recognize that women want to have a right to their own body, but I don't see why that right is not given to the baby. And while the woman has terrible pain and financial distress at risk, the baby has their very life at risk. I am of the opinion that the baby's right to their body is greater than a woman's right to her body because of this reason.

I think abortion should be illegal in all cases unless the woman has a drastic health condition that would put her life at risk if a delivery was attempted.

Really: that statistic is horrible, but if we made abortion free with no obstacles, those babies and many more would die. Wheres if abortion is illegal, much less babies will die.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would be interested in discussing the political mechanics of abortion policy instead of abortion itself, however. It's almost more important than abortion policy, because it's the issue a lot of people decide on for both sides.

But specifically, I'd like to address abortion's relationship to the Presidency. That being that there is none. Now sure, most people who are going to go to a political discussion thread are aware that the President doesn't directly set the abortion policy, but that the President appoints Supreme Court Justices and they have a massive amount of sway over it...except that doesn't really follow either.

The Supreme Court, despite having both politically divided makeups and politically conservative makeups...has never overturned Roe v. Wade. They've made plenty of rulings on abortion, yet have demonstrated a total unwillingness to challenge the original 14th Amendment protection of abortion established in Roe. Arguably the most restrictive ruling since then, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, was decided by two Reagan appointees and one Bush Sr. appointee who specifically rejected Rehnquist and Scalia's opposition to abortion as a constitutional liberty. And all that did was open the door to some regulation of first trimester abortions, but not enough to "interfere" with the right.

So why the fuck ought people to vote based on this issue? Their voting based on it clearly does not have an effect! You'd need an absurdity of public support for banning abortion entirely to elect officials who will ultimately appoint a majority of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe...and that doesn't exist. Only about 20% of the public thinks abortion should be banned entirely, and about 50% identify as "pro-life". If there isn't a base, and there isn't a President, and there aren't Justices....what are you voting for?