log inhelp

 | 

  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

We should not build a moon colony until we have a budget surplus

Page history last edited by Mike 12 years, 2 months ago

Reasons to agree:

  1. We would have to borrow money from the Chinese to go to the Moon. We already owe the Chinese too much money. We already pay too much interest on our debt. We are already too much in debt. What got us into this mess is big gas bags with big ideas who have no sense of reality, and don't view the money that comes to the government as something sacred, to be respected, and to be used wisely. Mitt Romney should do nothing but talk about the moon until Newt drops out. We need to stop people who have big ideas of how to use our money. If Mitt Romney does nothing else in life but stop Newt Gingrich from getting close to the white house, he will have lived a productive life. 
  2. We don't have to go to the moon to find water.
  3. We don't have to go to the moon to prove anything. Who are we going to prove something to? The Chinese? What does it prove to the Chinese to borrow hundreds of trillions of moor dollars from them?  
  4. We should only spend money on space after we have paid off our debt.
  5. It is cheaper to send robots into space than people.
  6. It is safer to send robots into space then people.
  7. We don't need a colony on the moon to motivate our kids.
  8. There are better ways to motivate kids than telling them if they do really well in science, they can help build a space toilet.  
  9. We should send algae to mars not people to the moon.
  10. We should go straight to mars, instead of building a colony on a rock that doesn't have an atmosphere.
  11. We should share the cost of further space exploration with other nations.
  12. It would be great to go to the moon, if we had the money. We don't. We shouldn't.
  13. The moon would not serve as a re fueling station. You would have to loose momentum to stop at the moon, and use great amounts of energy to get off the moon again. Their is no friction in space. If we wanted to go somewhere else, the best way to go there is a straight line: the moon, as far as a re fueling station makes no sense, because there is no fuel, and it is faster to just go to the place in the first place instead of taking a detour.  
  14. You would not "learn" anything new from going to the moon. We have already been there, done that. If we want to go to Mars, we just plan it out. If we want to practice, you could use Death Valley, or Antarctica just as well as the moon.  All these stupid people always say that we would learn something new by going to the moon, and it sounds good until you ask them for specifics... then they go silent.. We already no how to get to the moon. We already know how to get back... Sure people build models to help them build the real thing, but going to the moon to get to mars would be like building a life size model... it has all the cost of building the real thing, but none of the benefit, as we have already done the steps of going to the moon, but building a colony would be repeating these steps over and over and over... Lets get very specific. It cost thousands of dollars per pound to put things into space. We would learn nothing new from building a moon colony, we would just be repeating the Apollo missions thousands of times over, to the cost of trillions of dollars.
  15. John Derbyshire says the following: "The cost of the Apollo program, which put twelve men on the Moon for a few days each, was 170 billion in 2005 dollars, according to NASA. Allowing for seven years' worth of inflation, let's round to $200 billion, say $16 billion per astronaut. Newt's plan calls for a moon colony of 13,000, so we're looking at a price tag of $200 trillion or so.That's very rough and ready, of course. There would be economies of scale. On the other hand, there'd be huge things to be done — building living quarters, supplying colony-scale food and air, and so on — that Apollo didn't have to think about. Still, let's be optimistic and suppose the project could come in at 100 trillion dollars, say eight billion per colonist."
  16. If anyone wants to go off and tame an in hospitable wilderness, what would be wrong with Antarctica? Victory Adventure Expeditions will get you there and back for five thousand dollars. If there were any point to having a city-sized colony in Antarctica, I should think it could be done for less than a million per colonist — one eight-thousandth the cost of a moon base. 
  17. We should fix global warming before we build a colony on the moon.
  18. We should fix poverty before we build a colony on the moon.
  19. We should ensure freedom of the press everyone on the planet before we colonize the moon.
  20. We should colonize the ocean before we colonize the moon.
  21. We should colonize death valley before we colonize the moon.
  22. We should re-colonize Detroit before we colonize the moon.   

 

Reasons to disagree:

  1.  

 

 Score: +22 (reasons to agree), -0 (reasons to disagree, +17 (reasons to agree with reasons to agree) = +34

Movies that agree:

  1.  

Movies that disagree:

  1.  

Interest of those who agree

  1.  

Interest of those who disagree

  1.  

Books that agree

  1.   

Books that agree

  1.  

Web pages that agree

  1.   

Web pages that disagree

  1.  

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.

Printable version