Should NASA be abolished?

[Organized States]

I think we're forgetting that NASA isn't just an exploration agency, as they make extremely useful advances in the fields of Medical Science and Aerospace Engineering on top of their Space Based Operations.

However, I am more in favor of making a Space Defense Force (under the direction of the United States' Air Force Space Command) taking over NASA's EVA activities and continuing the militarization of Space.

We have to control the highest ground.

[Risottia]

The Constitution doesn't give the Government power of Space Exploration and all the power not given to the Feds is Constitutionally mandated to the states.

Not entirely true. The 10th Amendment states that power not given to the federal government is reserved to the States OR THE PEOPLE ( and it must be powers that aren't prohibited by the Constitution to the States).

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There's nothing in the enumerated powers explicitly allowing federal funding for science.It says that Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", but this governs patents and copyrights, rather than public funding. I think the only way it could be constitutional is if it was tied specifically to national defense.

I think there's a bit in Section 8 of Article I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_On ... f_Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

By analogue interpretation, since outer space is not US territory, US activity in the outer space is a federal prerogative.

[Risottia]

continuing the militarization of Space.

Somebody here forgot a bit of US law called "Outer Space Treaty".

[New Roma Republic]

NO! Space is the future. Humans need to expand into space if we are to sustain the population growth and demand for resources.

[Kroe]

Can you cite your sources where you got this information?

America's Education.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... chievement

We were talking about NASA, I have no idea what that report has to do with inefficiencies, over spending or administration problems in NASA but okay.

[Organized States]

continuing the militarization of Space.

Somebody here forgot a bit of US law called "Outer Space Treaty".

The Outer Space Treaty specifically bans Nuclear Weapons in Space, but as found in a 2003 USAF study, and stringent legal interpretation, the use of Kinetic Weaponry is not specifically banned and thus would make programs such as a SDF legal.

[The Time Alliance]

America's Education.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... chievement

We were talking about NASA, I have no idea what that report has to do with inefficiencies, over spending or administration problems in NASA but okay.

The guy said it led to inefficiency problems.

You asked for a source and based on exactly what he said I gave an example of a case in which the Spending only kept things uneffcient

[Allanea]

We all realize NASA will not always be necessary, right?

[Organized States]

We all realize NASA will not always be necessary, right?

True, but it is needed at this point in time...

[Kroe]

We were talking about NASA, I have no idea what that report has to do with inefficiencies, over spending or administration problems in NASA but okay.

The guy said it led to inefficiency problems.

You asked for a source and based on exactly what he said I gave an example of a case in which the Spending only kept things uneffcient

He specificly said it led to NASA have Inefficiencies, over spending and administration problems, I guess I could have been more clear but I wanted him to cite his source where he got that piece of information not some report written by the conservative think tank know as The Heritage Foundation.

[The Two Jerseys]

Hell no.

NASA does more than space exploration. Who do you think is paying for those experimental hypersonic planes?

[Organized States]

Hell no.

NASA does more than space exploration. Who do you think is paying for those experimental hypersonic planes?

Well, to be fair, DARPA and the USAF do too, but not nearly as much as NASA does.

[Risottia]

Somebody here forgot a bit of US law called "Outer Space Treaty".

The Outer Space Treaty specifically bans Nuclear Weapons in Space,

It doesn't do ONLY that.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Spa ... ty_of_1967

Article I

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Article III

States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co- operation and understanding.

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

...


In short, militarization of space is not an available option. You can place conventional weapons in space (and not on celestial bodies) with the sole purpose of maintaining international peace and furthering international cooperation, and only on an equal basis with the other countries. Yes, "international" here is defined as "all nations and all mankind" (see art.I) . Militarization of space does not fall within "international cooperation".

[Organized States]

The Outer Space Treaty specifically bans Nuclear Weapons in Space,

It doesn't do ONLY that.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Spa ... ty_of_1967

I'd like to remind you of the fact that placing conventional weapons and anti-missile systems such as Reagan's SDI programs, would have done more for global peace than ever before (as it would have made most ICBMs nearly obsolete).

If anything, that's what I personally meant as Militarization, particularly US and European Missile Shields similar to SDI going up.

Imagine how much safer the world would be without ICBMs.

Also, do you really think that anyone isn't militarizing space?

Note, the X-37B (and its future variants), are most likely to be soon answered by Russian and Chinese counterparts.

[Ethel mermania]

there are regulatory functions that nasa provides that are needed, so i dont think it should be eliminated. i think things like manned spaceflight are unnecessary, and are a waste of money and should be curbed.

[Theorett]

Britain should create the British Space Company or create their own space conquering program and conquer space. Britain ended up with 25% of the worlds population and territory the last time they tried to conquer lots of land and territory before. HM Elizabeth II should be crowned HIM Queen-Empress Elizabeth II of Earth and Space.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule space!

[Aurulie]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

No, if anything we should raise taxes and help fund them even more.

[Andaricus]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

I don't know if it should be flat out abolished, but more or less just balanced and fazed out over time. I do agree that Private Companies should take over the Space Program (because they can and will do it better) but maybe NASA should be broken up between several difference companies.

[Allanea]

continuing the militarization of Space.

Somebody here forgot a bit of US law called "Outer Space Treaty".

The Outer Space Treaty doesn't ban the militarization of space. Only certain forms of it.

[Aurulie]

I believe that NASA could be abolished in the future, with its activities being taken over by the private space industry. Currently, companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences deliver supplies to and from the ISS, and have done so exceptionally well. If these companies develop manned, reusable spacecraft, they could take over the role of Russia's Soyuz rockets in sending astronauts to and from the ISS. In the future, they could also organize missions to Mars and other planets. The nonprofit organization Mars One is already planning a to establish a permanent colony on Mars by 2025. If they succeed, it would show that private companies can take over many of NASA's current roles, including extrasolar missions. NASA could be gradually abolished, allowing time for the private industry to take over.

So, NSG, what do you think? Should NASA be abolished?

NOTE: I state that NASA could be abolished, not should, because I am not 100% decided yet.

I don't know if it should be flat out abolished, but more or less just balanced and fazed out over time. I do agree that Private Companies should take over the Space Program (because they can and will do it better) but maybe NASA should be broken up between several difference companies.

No, government can handle space exploration better than the private sector.

[Alto Mantovano]

Definitely not. NASA is one of the few good things USA actually has, it would be madness to strip it. As for private space "exploration", it'll never replace public exploration, the goals aren't the same at all, the same way private sector will never replace the big public-funded fundamental research projects like CERN or ITER.

Exactly this .

[Grand Britannia]

No, never.

And NASA's funding should also be multiplied tenfold.

You want $170 billion a year... spent on NASA?

That fuckin Deathstar ain't building itself.

[Theorett]

You want $170 billion a year... spent on NASA?

That fuckin Deathstar ain't building itself.

I prefer if mankinds first death star belonged to Britain.

[Organized States]

That fuckin Deathstar ain't building itself.

I prefer if mankinds first death star belonged to Britain.

It'll be a NATO Deathstar.

Those Mir Stations aren't going to fail on their own you now.

[Theorett]

I prefer if mankinds first death star belonged to Britain.

It'll be a NATO Deathstar.

Those Mir Stations aren't going to fail on their own you now.

No way! Rule Britannia!