Instigator / Pro
Points: 42

The cost of space exploration is justified

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
DynamicSquid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
"The Cost" - The money allocated towards private and public space companies
"Space Exploration" - The act of exploring, entering, or utilizing space and all its available resources
"Justified" - Being acceptable
Are we spending too much money on space exploration?
I would be glad to have a serious and insightful debate.
Round 1
Published:
Hello Garai and I'm glad you accepted. I hope that we do have a pleasant debate. Let's jump right into it...


A) INTRODUCTION


Are we spending too much money on space exploration? On stuff like satellites, telescopes, and rockets? I am here to debate that.

BoP

My goal is too prove that our current money allocated for space companies is enough, and is not too much.

My opponents goal is to argue that we are spending too much money on space companies.

Outline

Round 1 - First argument
Round 2 - Clash, and Second Argument
Round 3 - Clash, and Third Argument

First Argument - Space exploration is a multi-billion dollar sector
  • What does the sector include?
  • How will dropping allocated money for space companies affect the sector?
  • How will it affect us?
Second ArgumentSpace companies are helping people
  • How it helps improve people's lives
  • How it saves money on disasters
  • Space company's numerous technologies
Third ArgumentIt builds one of our fundamentals - Curiosity
  • How has curiosity shaped us in the past?
  • How will it shape us in the future?

B) ARGUMENTS


First Argument - Space exploration is a multi-billion dollar sector

How many people work directly in the space industry? According the the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the number is well above 170 000.

Now how many people work indirectly with the space industry?

SpaceX’s new rocket, the Starship, is primarily made of steel. 218 000 people work in the steel industry in America. Most of Nasa’s rockets are made of aluminum and titanium alloys. Alcoa, a major aluminum manufacturing company, employs 14 600 people. The China Hongqiao company also manufacturers aluminum, producing over 7.5 mmt per year, and employing over 60 000 people. And that’s not all. Where do you think Nasa gets all its fuel from? Electronics? And more?

A study done by the Washington Post revealed that the unemployment rate in America is already at 3.6%, and having a down look on space exploration will discourage future advancements in space, young students’ interests, and possibly more and higher budget cuts. This will reduce space companies productivity and could possibly make thousands of jobs unstable, or gone!

This can also unexpectedly lead to even the stock market being affected. A study done by the Elite Jones (forgot which website it was from, sorry) found out that a company laying off hundreds of employees can reduce major stock revenues by up to 50%. For example, near the end of 2018, Canada suffered a major job crises, and in turn, S&P 500, which is a leading stock index, saw a drop in it’s return profit, from 12.7% to 5.6%.

As you can see, space exploration is a multi-billion dollar industry, with companies involved all across the world. And it's not just American companies. China, Europe, Italy, all have space companies, and will be negatively impacted if space exploration is allocated less money.


C) CONCLUSION

In this round, I have talked about how the space industry is a multi-billion dollar sector, and how it affects many jobs and companies across the world. It also affects you.

In my next round, I will be talking about how space companies are improving countless lives, and saving millions of dollars.

I await Garai's arguments.

Thank you.
Published:
Before we start, a few questions regarding definitions.

My opponent defined space explorations like this:
"Space Exploration" - The act of exploring, entering, or utilizing space and all its available resources
In order to have one enjoyable debate, I would like to know what are space resources and how space companies utilize that resources for their and general good? Don't overlook this in Round 2 please. :)

Okay, so now we can start.

FIRST ARGUMENT-Exploitation of Earth resources

Let's look at one not so famous event that happened about thirty years ago. Namely, I will tell you a story about Challenger space shuttle. It was January 28, 1986. Seven astronauts embarked on shuttle and everything was ready for launching it into space. And the shuttle launched. Everything was going great, but after little more than one minute, rocket exploded at an altitude of 14 000 meters above the ground. About 100 000 kilograms of steel, aluminium, electronics and other high-tech materials (www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Space_Shuttle/Shuttle_technical_facts) got blew up in air and fell into Atlantic ocean. Bodies of seven astronauts were never found. The mission of this flight was to carry some small satellite that had to observe Halley's comet as it was approaching near the Sun. Wow, really a important thing for mankind. And people had to pay price of that "curiosity" with their lives...(if you really want to read a whole story, here you are: https://www.britannica.com/event/Challenger-disaster#ref1103605)

My point here is that space companies are using hundreds of thousands of tons of metal, they are exploiting earth gases, oil and others valuable resources. These aren't renewable resources. They are gone forever. And why? Because of building their rockets and satellites and making fuel for them. And why is that? Now you'll say: "But we can look at a forecast today because of these precious satellites!" Yes, and because we have forecast all of our problems are solved. No thank you, I will rather look at the ways of Native-Americans who lived with nature in harmony and could accurately "read nature". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that our lives aren't easier now with all internet, navigation or some other fancy things we have because of space technology. But on other hand, many powerful civilizations were doing just fine without all this technology. :) 
Anyway, I wanted to say that all these earth resources are being exploited and nobody is thinking how to save our resources or use them wiser. Problem is that the damage is bigger than benefit.

Now I would like to focus on your first argument.
You presented us some fascinating statistics I must say. Although you cleverly or not broadened this debate on all people working in industries that are connected to space industry, I must say that if space companies had lower budget it wouldn't necessarily impact on jobs, because I'm reminding you, we are talking about billions of dollars. Just because of cutting Nasa's budget for some hundreds of millions of dollars it doesn't mean that their employees would get fired. As you guessed that many jobs would be gone because budget cuts, I will guess that employees in that case would be doing their jobs with more enthusiasm just to prove they can continue to upgrade space technology without more budget. :)
Last, remember that we aren't debating what would happen if space companies got less money, but is cost of space exploration justified.
"My goal is too prove that our current money allocated for space companies is enough, and is not too much."
Just stick to your goal and good luck. :))
 Thank you and see you in the next round!
Round 2
Published:
Hello Garai and thanks for your response. Let's jump in...


A) CLASH

My opponent said...

what are space resources and how space companies utilize that resources for their and general good?
Great question. Sorry I didn't make this clear. Space resources would be stuff found in space like asteroids, planets, and more. Companies can use these resources for actions like scientific research, asteroid mining, or planet colonization. Hopefully this clears it up.

 rocket exploded [...] bodies of seven astronauts were never found
I'm assuming you're referring to space exploration's associated risks. To that I say, why do firefighters risk their lives to fight fires? Why do police officers put the safety of civilians in front of theirs? Or even more relatable, why do people risk their lives to climb Mt. Everest? All these jobs have a risk to them. In fact, most jobs have a risk too them. But we can't simply avid doing something because of the potential risk. I could die in a car crash to work, so do I stop going to work?

And as technology advances, so do our safety measures.

Wow, really a important thing for mankind
Yes, indeed an important mission.

My point here is that space companies are using hundreds of thousands of tons of metal, they are exploiting earth gases, oil and others valuable resources. [..] many powerful civilizations were doing just fine without all this technology.
With reusable rockets, we don't have to spend nearly as much as we did on rockets. And with greener technology, we can stop using natural gas and oil, ad perhaps direct it into fuel for rockets.

Also, we can use methane a a fuel source for rockets, which in fact, is renewable.

space companies had lower budget it wouldn't necessarily impact on jobs
Let's look at Nasa. That is the case for now. But as this debate goes, it is without question that Nasa may face further and higher budget cuts. If we don't recognize the value of space exploration, and in fact decide to reduce Nasa's budget even further, it is undoubted that jobs will be lost.

Oh, and just a side note, do you know how much Nasa get's every year? If America's budget is 1 dollar, Nasa would get less than half a penny. Just keep that in mind for my next argument.

remember that we aren't debating what would happen if space companies got less money, but is cost of space exploration justified.
Yes. Space exploration's costs are justified because it supports thousands of jobs and improves the economy. I do not believe that I'm going off track here.


B) ARGUMENT

Second Argument - Space companies are helping people

Let's also use Nasa as an example here.

Do you know what Nasa does for less than half a penny each year?

NASA has over 2 000 spin-off technologies improving our lives today. This all includes basic items like memory foam, to more complex systems like AI recognition devices or heat absorbing metal alloys.

36 of NASA’s satellites currently orbiting Earth right now provide vital information on how our planet’s doing, from better hurricane prediction results from the satellite Aqua, to better climate monitoring from SORCE. All of these satellites are saving and improving countless lives each year.

Take SMAP for example. This satellite can precisely measure all the crop yields and climate changes on Earth every three days, and in turn, can predict when the next drought or flood will happen, which by the way, accounts for over 40% of all natural disasters in the world, giving farmers and rural homeowners a better heads up to what’s coming next. NASA has repeatedly proven that this can save upwards of $30 billion per major disaster.

But what about private companies?

SpaceX for example launched its first commercial flight in April of this year, the first of many to come. The satellite it launched is one of the most advanced communications satellites out there, used for both public and private reasons.

Private space companies are still relatively new, but as they further advance their technology, they can vastly bring a difference to our society.


C) CONCLUSION

In this round, I have talked about how Nasa's Earth Science missions help lives and saves money. I have also refuted and disproven many of my opponents claims, and supported my own. Also note how I have backed up my claims with numerous credible sources and links, but my opponent only has provided two.

I await his response.

Thank you.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
Hello, and let's begin. Oh, and sadly my opponent has forfeit the last round, so I will keep this short to make things fair.


A) ARGUMENT

Third Argument - It builds one of our fundamentals - Curiosity

Why do we build ships to explore the ocean blue? Why do we travel for miles to explore uncharted territory? Why do we venture out into the depths of space? The answer to all these could be described in one world. Curiosity.

As humans, we were born curious. We discovered fire, and experimented it our of curiosity. We invested marvelous technology out of curiosity. As babies, we like to explore the world around us. Experience new senses.


B) SUMMARY

In my previous rounds, I have talked about three things, how space exploration connects many sectors across the world, how space companies are helping people, and how it builds on one of our fundamentals. I have also refuted many of my opponents arguments, and supported my own.

In the end, I hope that my opponent responds, and I wish him the best of luck.

Thank you.
Forfeited
Added:
Challenger space shuttle described as a 'not so famous event'
LMAO the Challenger launch is one of the most well-known space exploration disasters in history. Anybody who knows anything at all about space has heard of Challenger. Describing it as a little-known event honestly makes it seem like con doesn't know much on the subject and just Googled 'space disaster' then when the top result was something about Challenger (because, again, very well known event so naturally a top result) they said "wow I never heard of this before. Well if I never heard of it I assume nobody else has either!"
Edit: As a test I googled just "space disaster", nothing else, and on a brand new phone I just got last week and have not connected my Google account to so no results tailored for me. All top 3 results were listicles about space disasters and all 3 included Challenger launch. Unsuprisingly Colombia was in a lot of the results too.
'Not so famous event' my ass.
#10
Added:
--> @Alec
[budget of $21.5 billion for 2019's fiscal year]
Yes, I would. I haven't done the research on this specific issue yet, but to the point where NASA can adequately collaborate with private companies, while sustaining Earth Science missions. No more than $35 billion.
NASA has 2 important goals.
1) Help Earth
-> Earth Science Missions
-> Sustain and Improve existing satellites
2) Explore Space
-> Working with (not for) private companies
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
NASA currently gets $19 billion per year. Would you increase this? If so, by how much?
#8
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
Hmm... that is an interesting topic.
Perhaps we could debate it later? I have some debates ongoing now, and I kinda need to do some research on that topic beforehand. I can let you know when I'll be free.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I would be interested in a debate similar to this. A resolution something like "Significant Financial and Political Capital Ought to be Devoted to Establishing an Off-world Colony before the End of the 21st Century." A slew of definitions would likely be required, but I'd be interested in taking Con. Let me know if you're interested.
#6
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I think that we're not spending enough on space exploration/development
#5
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
Interesting, although I do believe that Con does have a chance here...
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Odd, lately I've been thinking about debating this very topic. Unfortunately I don't think Con has a leg to stand on, or I'd take it.
#3
Added:
--> @WaterPhoenix
Ah, good question. I never thought of that.
In this case, the Contender will argue that space exploration allocates too much money.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Is con proving space exploration is spending too much money or too little money?
#1
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF ⠀
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
:(((((((((
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50%+ forfeit