NASA chief: U.S. won't go it alone on manned Mars mission

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Diablos

 

Just read the Constitution, please.

No, you simply want me to read your interpretation of the constitution. Explain to me this: How does a Mars Rover which only benefits a few academic elites and not the average American Joe (the taxpayer) provide for our common welfare? It simply doesn't and you absolutely cannot justify such projects from a constitutional standpoint.

reply to post by Diablos

No, you simply want me to read your interpretation of the constitution. Explain to me this: How does a Mars Rover which only benefits a few academic elites and not the average American Joe (the taxpayer) provide for our common welfare? It simply doesn't and you absolutely cannot justify such projects from a constitutional standpoint.

Sorry, but you're the one who is imposing your own interpretation on the Constitution. You are so fixated on "provide for the common defense" that you literally cannot seem to see "promote the common welfare." Let me answer your question as simply as possible. Who built the probe? Do they buy stuff? Can they build other things, including smart weapons to "provide for the common defense," if need be? Who built the booster? Do they buy stuff? Can the rockets they build also be used to "provide for the common defense?" The factories the rockets were built at: did they employ people to build them? Do they buy stuff? Can these factories make things to "provide for the common defense?" Did landing a probe on Mars make America look, like, technologically totally bad----? Does that make rival nations, whether militarily or economically, look at us with the sort of respect that might "provide for the common defense?" Most importantly, are we learning something new? Something that might, some day, be mind boggling important to the fate of all mankind? Well, we don't know that for sure yet, but if you are unwilling to take the risk, you know nothing of the spirit of American pioneering.

Originally posted by DJW001
Sorry, but you're the one who is imposing your own interpretation on the Constitution. You are so fixated on "provide for the common defense" that you literally cannot seem to see "promote the common welfare."

The problem with using this line of thinking to justify NASA's funding is where does one draw the line? Another can easily cite the constitution of "provide for the common welfare" to argue in favor of universal healthcare. And yet, another can use that same argument to justify free post-secondary education to college students. Pretty soon, America would be no different economically and socially than the extreme socialist countries of Northern Europe. Do you really mean to tell me the Founding Fathers envisioned our nation to become like that when they wrote "to provide for the common welfare"?

Originally posted by DJW001Let me answer your question as simply as possible. Who built the probe? Do they buy stuff? Can they build other things, including smart weapons to "provide for the common defense," if need be? Who built the booster? Do they buy stuff? Can the rockets they build also be used to "provide for the common defense?" The factories the rockets were built at: did they employ people to build them? Do they buy stuff? Can these factories make things to "provide for the common defense?" Did landing a probe on Mars make America look, like, technologically totally bad----? Does that make rival nations, whether militarily or economically, look at us with the sort of respect that might "provide for the common defense?"

A bunch of red-herrings. Just because those firms that have been contracted can build technology that can be used for defense does not, under any circumstance, give it authority to build technology with no direct or indirect practical applications in defense. What did we gain from the mission to the moon that "provided for the general welfare"? Moon rocks? Yeah, that definitely was a strong return of investment to the American taxpayer. Also, we are already the most feared country in the world. Why do we need to be flexing our biceps when we already know we can practically take down any country on this planet? Most countries are well aware of this, and they don't need to look to some feat in robotics technology to know this.

Originally posted by DJW001Most importantly, are we learning something new? Something that might, some day, be mind boggling important to the fate of all mankind? Well, we don't know that for sure yet, but if you are unwilling to take the risk, you know nothing of the spirit of American pioneering.

So, tell me, do answers to the questions "did life exist on mars?", "are the conditions necessary for life on mars?", and "does water exist on Mars?" also help to "provide for the common welfare"? I'm sorry, but I don't see any direct applications anywhere in the near and distant future that can come from the knowledge of answering such questions, especially industrial applications that can be of defense significance. Once again, the answers to such questions benefit a few academics and not the taxpayer base as a whole. Hence, this project should be funded by them since it is they who want the answers to this. The vast majority of Americans couldn't care one way or the other.

reply to post by Diablos

The problem with using this line of thinking to justify NASA's funding is where does one draw the line? Another can easily cite the constitution of "provide for the common welfare" to argue in favor of universal healthcare. And yet, another can use that same argument to justify free post-secondary education to college students. Pretty soon, America would be no different economically and socially than the extreme socialist countries of Northern Europe. Do you really mean to tell me the Founding Fathers envisioned our nation to become like that when they wrote "to provide for the common welfare"?

After reading the Constitution, please read a newspaper. Oh, and switch Glen Beck off.

Let me answer your question as simply as possible. Who built the probe? Do they buy stuff? Can they build other things, including smart weapons to "provide for the common defense," if need be? Who built the booster? Do they buy stuff? Can the rockets they build also be used to "provide for the common defense?" The factories the rockets were built at: did they employ people to build them? Do they buy stuff? Can these factories make things to "provide for the common defense?" Did landing a probe on Mars make America look, like, technologically totally bad----? Does that make rival nations, whether militarily or economically, look at us with the sort of respect that might "provide for the common defense?"

A bunch of red-herrings. Just because those firms that have been contracted can build technology that can be used for defense does not, under any circumstance, give it authority to build technology with no direct or indirect practical applications in defense. What did we gain from the mission to the moon that "provided for the general welfare"? Moon rocks? Yeah, that definitely was a strong return of investment to the American taxpayer. Also, we are already the most feared country in the world. Why do we need to be flexing our biceps when we already know we can practically take down any country on this planet? Most countries are well aware of this, and they don't need to look to some feat in robotics technology to know this.

Not red herrings, you just can't understand anything but brute force. You do not understand the difference between respected and feared,

Most importantly, are we learning something new? Something that might, some day, be mind boggling important to the fate of all mankind? Well, we don't know that for sure yet, but if you are unwilling to take the risk, you know nothing of the spirit of American pioneering.

So, tell me, do answers to the questions "did life exist on mars?", "are the conditions necessary for life on mars?", and "does water exist on Mars?" also help to "provide for the common welfare"? I'm sorry, but I don't see any direct applications anywhere in the near and distant future that can come from the knowledge of answering such questions, especially industrial applications that can be of defense significance. Once again, the answers to such questions benefit a few academics and not the taxpayer base as a whole. Hence, this project should be funded by them since it is they who want the answers to this. The vast majority of Americans couldn't care one way or the other.

Can you state definitively that they will never be of importance? You have already suggested that you agree with Machiavelli, in that you would rather be feared than loved. Now you are questioning whether knowledge is power.