| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 7/6/2007 9:42:30 AM | | So all these wonderful things developed "because of the space program" would not have been developed regardless? And what did we miss out on because resources were used in pursuit of "space exploration" rather than other pursuits here? Perhaps if we had put all those resourses into worthwhile pursuits here on Earth, we would all be better off. What exactly was the payoff for landing on the moon? | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 27 | |
| |
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 7/6/2007 1:32:16 PM | What's the point of a new born baby?
Think we won't run out of oil? minerals? good air to breathe? energy?
Think we won't ruin our planet?... or some natural catastrophy? Just one immense volcano caused a year without summer in the early 1800's. What do you think the result of something like that happening today would be?
Some of the solutions to these and other problems can only be found with new and fresh ideas formed by exploration. Before north america was discovered people owed EVERYTHING to their masters (kings etc.) Things changed. These are the good old days.
Nasa's budget is only about 10% of the US defense budget.
Of course every dollar spent ... IS spent here on earth, making the economy go round and round.... 
As for humankind's survival. It's kinda dangerous to keep all one's eggs in just one basket. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 7/8/2007 4:10:47 PM | There are unlimited resources to be found in space. Do we need it? In the long term, we just might. With our overpopulation problem here, colonization of Mars would help if it could be done. Maybe it's too difficult and too costly to be realistic, but space holds a lot of promise. New technology might make it easier. Lighter and stronger materials, the possibility of a space elevator...
Needed, I don't know. Not immediately, but it's a good cause and the money isn't wasted. Another thing is sometimes throwing research money at any good research can be a good thing. Ideas and inventions have a way of finding uses far removed from what they were first intended for. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/1/2007 8:41:00 AM | | There is always the possibility that goverment scientist know something that the rest of us dont know..Knowing that you were the first to make contact, reap what benefits made available to the discoverers,ect,ect..I do find it hard to believe that astronomers think they have seen the ends of the universe, or as some say the beginning... | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/1/2007 1:13:49 PM | What, nobody realized that we are living in a shooting gallery, the only away to survive a Dino killer asteroid is to not be here when it hits, so we need to know way more about the neighbourhood, that means that We Desperately Need a Space program. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/1/2007 2:07:51 PM | You're right.Space travel is no longer needed.We should stop going right now and spend the money on new roads and boats.The employees of NASA could whip up a 'rite good burger at Mac D's no doubt and we'll all be happy.
Its a bit like saying your never going to a beach again as you seen sand before....or never having sex again because you've already had an orgasm.....well some people have,right? | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/1/2007 9:00:59 PM | Most definately the space program is still needed. NASA not only spends money on space exploration it also spends it on research. Advances from NASA have benefited every field from the medical to environmental.
Now benefits of the Apollo space program (moon landing).
Huge amount of technological advance within the short time
Advances in astronomy, geology, biology
Boosting peoples confidence in our capability of acheiving such a feat
There has been alot of money invested, but with new discoveries and new technologies comes new jobs which helps the economy.
Now some of you are saying that we should stop spending money on the space program and start using that money to fix things here. Come on people do you think throwing money at the problems here will fix them because we have been doing that for how long and things still aren't fixed. If we really wanted to fix things here we most absolutely could I mean come on we put someone on the moon for petes sake, if we can do that we can do anything we put our minds to. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/1/2007 10:56:37 PM | The reason you don't consider it a big deal is because cosmology is becoming more and more obscure and mathematically oriented. Lay people see space exploration as just more of the same...a rocket going out into space. They don't understand the implications the launch could have for science. It could help us better understand our own planet by comparing it with others. It could help us better understand the origin of our galaxy, and even our whole universe. Ultimately, it could help us build up new technologies, and drive innovation in a variety of technological fields, including computing and rockets, to name the obvious ones.
I don't think the pursuit of knowledge is a waste of money. If Bush funds faith-based initiatives, he can at least allocate some money to something that is a bit more conceptually useful. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/2/2007 4:29:37 AM | Space Exploration hasn't even started yet. It is very necessary for some practical and some impractical reasons, even indirect reasons. One indirect reason is a device we all use to heat up many foods we eat, microwaves, they were developed from space exploration research, a way to cook food without any need of fuel or flame, just energy. A practical reason is population, at the rate of population increase, we'll either need to enforce population control measures, or expand into space, I do not trust a single government on the planet with this however. Impractical reasons would be one Hilton Hotels considers, a hotel resort on the moon, you could pay to fly up to it, then come back down to earth after your vacation is over.
Overall though, exploring in general, space, on earth, under the ground, is required by our race to progress. It demands for a serious space exploration that the greater powers of the world work together, and not for monetary gain. If the military (plural) of the world truly understood the destructive power of understanding how the sun works intimately, I would wager a large sum that they'd have already had research stations posted all around the sun somehow, and probably have blown us up by now. By learning about what's out there, we learn more about what's down here and most importantly, what we really are.
I can't even comment about the media side of things, I always go off on long rants about it, that I'll just drop it at, you are conditioned to want to see the things they show, gradually so that you don't even notice it happening until it's to late and your hooked. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/2/2007 7:11:22 PM | yes...we need to explore...and we need to get out there! think about it...unlimited resources, so the prices of energy drops....available to all at a reasonable cost. better health care, better jobs, easier to grow food, less pollution cause "heavy industry" is stuck in space. We could build a paradise.
The young look at the space program as a "waste" of money....to us older ones, it was a promise for a better future, that got derailed...and we aren't taking that lying down. Even today, personal fortunes are being spent to develope ways and means to actually get up there and do it!
The payoff will more than make up for what little is currently spent. The general public has to look past their noses to the future. We already know that the money spent on space would NOT go to fixing problems here...just as new taxes are never fully utilized for what they were intended to do. (Example...5 buck road tax on tires, to pay for reclaimation of the rubber and steel in them when they wore out....more tires in landfills now than ever before! The bucks are used to pay to bury these tires, and leave then as a legacy for the future...the excess money? Gone to other "social projects". ) | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/3/2007 2:26:07 PM |
Be patient, space exploration isn't always going to be as exciting as Paris Hilton going to jail but the potential future payoff is going to be huge.
Which payoff are you referring to - that from space exploration or from jailed celebrities?
Either way, I guess I have to agree. Imprison all the celebrities and lets get this Mars colony a'hopping! | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/3/2007 2:52:56 PM | The point I was trying to make was not that you do not get payback from space exploration but that it is more cost effect to spend your money directly on research.
Right on! NASA seems unique, even through history, as being an organization that has persuaded those with money to part with it 'so they can do something neat'. Space exploration may be necessary, but let's at least do it for something more rational than 'GEE WIZZ'
Someone drew a parallel with Marco Polo and Columbus. No history buff there! Marco Polo was a trader, looking for new people and products to trade with. Columbus was also a trader, trying to find an alternative route to the far East to trade for spices and circumvent the Portugese monopoly around Cape Horn. SHEESH! In other words... (I figure it may need underlining if folks use such misinformation as reasons to play) ...exploration for profit!
NASA didn't even exist when satellites were developed (wasn't it the Russians who put up the first satellite, anyway?) The armed forces developed the satellite technology for spying and communications. Essential progress for warfare. GPS came along to guide missiles to their targets - way more accurately than the general public ever needed - hence the degradation of early public GPS signals with 'selective availability'. In other words... ... exploration for military advantage (and therefore profit!).
You can argue that medicine and lots of other disciplines have benefitted from the space program, but you could also speculate that the same funds spent directly on medical research may well have come up with a great deal more.
The biggest problem with NASA's model of progress is that their goals are fuzzy, making progress difficult to evaluate and making it easy to change their minds whenever new leaders emerge or public opinion goes against them. That invites waste. How many other people would just love to get money on the promise that they would do something neat with it? | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/3/2007 3:01:17 PM | | I don't believe were ever going to get much exploration riding bottled roocket type machines up. Until we come up with a better ship were stagnating as far as space travel goes. I agree with many other Private is the future. The state of space travel reminds me of what happened to the flying wing, others saw it as a threat and killed it off only for it to be rediscovered many years later for all its incredible benifits. Lets look back at what competed against the shuttle, maybe we should have gone that way because it was hard since were there now, the scramjets. Funny how there is never enough time to do it right the first time but there is always time to do it right the second time. If only Kelly Johnson were alive today and we put him in charge. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/3/2007 3:35:13 PM | I would be more than happy if we stop even bothering sending people into space and just focus on things like hubble, voyager and the mars rovers. For the money i think we just get much more bang for the buck with unmanned exploration.
Sending a man to mars would be incredible but at a huge price tag and if they died it would set exploration back 30 years. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/3/2007 4:43:02 PM | Yes, because it's there.
"space exploration" hahahaha..we haven't even gotten out of our own gravity well. Some probes yes...but Mankind has never been farther than the moon. Have you looked at the expanse of space? Holy cannoli! There is so much out there to discover!
It's extremely exciting | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/5/2007 4:45:10 PM | "Holy cannoli!"...this expression should not be used in the forums, seeing as how it actually makes some of us guys think about food....mmm...cannoli....yurcks! never mind..
Anyways...we do have ion drive and a nuclear engine that works, but we can't get permission to ise the nuclear one from an earth lift-off. This was built and the prototype tried back in the 50's. Ground zero is still a bit "hot", but, it did work. In space? Hmm...could be used if they weren't so squeamish about alloowing nuclear material in space.
The ion rocket has been used in some space probles already.
Also, solar sails. They have been working that one for years.
Exploration is the best tool we have to open up resources and opportunities for everyone. Also, beats sitting on our collective azzes at home doing little or nothing to expand our horizons. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/6/2007 4:19:09 AM | "So I'm asking, Should Congress still be allocating money towards the space program? Is it needed?"
many scientific experiments are carried out on the international space station, such as those that are part of finding a cure for different types of cancer. the near zero gravity environment is part of the laboratory required for testing. what if a loved one of yours is saved from research that nasa conducts?
many advanced technologies are developed and then transferred to industry. there are many sound reasons why nasa is a great investment.
if you're asking a question more about optimizing the US federal budget, maybe you should compare nasa's budget to the defense department's. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/8/2007 11:55:03 AM | many scientific experiments are carried out on the international space station, such as those that are part of finding a cure for different types of cancer. the near zero gravity environment is part of the laboratory required for testing. what if a loved one of yours is saved from research that nasa conducts? So what medical advances has NASA contributed to in the several decades that they have been in space? Who's life has been saved? Skylab was around decades before the space station but NASA, in their wisdom, decided to dump it. That has been typical of NASA's life science efforts too. I can't think of one life sciences project that has been allowed to proceed to completion.
NASA is full of hype for the benefits of space utilization but most of their publicity is just guesswork. Zero gravity was hyped as a panacea for all sorts of medical advances. They didn't realize there was no such thing. Tiny jostling with attitude adjustment jets, people contacting the space vehicle structure and the likes means there are constant minor accelerations which frustrate efforts to produce zero forces. and to take advantage of procedures which need it. So the environment is now microgravity instead of zero gravity. The bottom line is that most enterprises (including big business) which jumped on the zero gravity bandwagon have long since jumped off again.
It is amazing to me that most people believe that NASA has made great strides in space and that medicine has benefitted. Haha. NASA hasn't even had a long-term space vehicle that could support life for more than a couple of weeks. Contrast that with the Russians who have kept people in space for more than a year. They are the ones responsible for developing the survival techniques and medical understanding to keep people in space for a year or more when life expectancy in space in the early decades was less than 3 weeks.
Focus is a major deficit in NASA's planning and execution which contributes to costly and marginal progress. It seems that several people here are arguing that, rather than suggesting space exploration isn't worthwhile.
The defese budget may be a lot more. Many may consider it money wasted. But that is no excuse to waste money on some other unrelated project. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/8/2007 12:56:58 PM |
many advanced technologies are developed and then transferred to industry. there are many sound reasons why nasa is a great investment.
if you're asking a question more about optimizing the US federal budget, maybe you should compare nasa's budget to the defense department's.
Funny how you can justify NASA's existence because it has advanced society in unintended ways, but when it comes to anything dealing with the military you forget this argument in the same breath you made it. Try to maintain a shred of consistency in your thinly veiled political statements.
If you want to cut the budget, cut the handouts - domestic and foreign. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/8/2007 3:29:37 PM |
So what medical advances has NASA contributed to in the several decades that they have been in space? Who's life has been saved? Skylab was around decades before the space station but NASA, in their wisdom, decided to dump it. That has been typical of NASA's life science efforts too. I can't think of one life sciences project that has been allowed to proceed to completion.
So what if it hasn't? Are we in danger of running out of people? We can easily make more. Given a choice, I would cut medical research. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/9/2007 12:27:21 PM |
So what if it hasn't? So you can't use the argument that NASA is helping to cure cancer and save people's lives to justify funding NASA.
I would cut medical research. An interesting option with many potential benefits. Why not just drop medicine completely? We could save $400 billion if we cut medicare - about the same as the defense budget. Unfortunately, the social response to reduced life expectancy has been to breed more, so dropping medicine may not cure the overpopulation problem.
Once again, folks don't seem to get that several people here, myself included, aren't suggesting that NASA's budget be cut. We are suggesting that NASA spend their budget on projects which address real world opportunities. History has demonstrated that enterprises with a focus are more likely to come up with something useful. For example, as I pointed out in an earlier post, much exploration in the past was motivated by commerce, not just some romantic idea of exploring for fun. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/11/2007 5:07:27 PM |
Funny how you can justify NASA's existence because it has advanced society in unintended ways, but when it comes to anything dealing with the military you forget this argument in the same breath you made it. Try to maintain a shred of consistency in your thinly veiled political statements.
If you want to cut the budget, cut the handouts - domestic and foreign.
responding to your statements may be a slippery slope, so i'll be careful and leave it at this:
1. surely nasa has advanced society in unintended ways, for serendipity comes with the territory of science... but the record is quite clear with their intent. from http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html
"NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research."
2. the political statement was not thinly veiled in the least. if for some reason it's ambiguous, i say very clearly i am against war machines of all kinds for they can do no one any good except for those lowly creatures that would use them. i look to Albert Einstein himself who was a statesman on these matters in his elder years. perhaps you might be inclined to better yourself through reading his noble works.
3. there was no inconsisitency in my claim with respect to science produced from the evil of war... for i made none about it. if you insist on propping up figments of your imagination, let me set the record straight.
The U.S. Department of Defense budget climbed to a record $606.546 Billion (FY07)
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf
most of that budget was used in producing weapons for which there was no new science done. in any case, the defense department's inordinate budget would be best reallocated to those scientists who work to directly advance the body of knowledge of humankind, whether at nasa, nsf or academia, if that's the priority.
in this context, the request to "Try to maintain a shred of consistency in your thinly veiled political statements" is outright rejected. to suppose that the motives of the greater body of science and the defense department war machine are on the same ground is not only inane - it is thoroughly absurd in its implicit contradiction.
4. i state nothing explicit about "want[ing] to cut the budget" as you claim. expressed by the op was implied concern about the usefulness of federal budget expenditures on nasa. if an organization wants to maximize its return on an investment, typically some optimization algorithm is implemented with respect to resource allocation such that the necessary agents receive requisite capital to meet the organization's objectives.
...hence, my reply "if you're asking a question more about optimizing the US federal budget, maybe you should compare nasa's budget to the defense department's."
5. it's rather funny that you mention foreign handouts. sure, the us government does throw a few bones here and there. but nothing compared to the "handouts" as you loosely say, from foreigners. but perhaps you don't keep up with world financial news. please, allow me enlighten you.
in a recent article by bloomberg, addressing an implicit concern about the usd-jpy carry trade unwinding, the real facts of who is subsidizing whom is revealed. from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aLv4kVv3l.j8
"The dollar's slump to a 15-year low against six of its most actively traded peers is turning the gains into losses for international bondholders, prompting China, Japan and Taiwan to sell. Overseas investors own more than half of the $4.4 trillion in marketable U.S. government debt outstanding, up from a third in 2001, according to data compiled by the Treasury Department."
THAT WAS NOT A TYPO; $4.4TRILLION.
"Japanese investors, who held $612 billion as of June 30, are on course to cut for a third year, according to the Treasury. China trimmed its U.S. debt by 3.4 percent in the second quarter to $405 billion, the first reduction in three years. Taiwan pared by 10 percent in the past year to $57.5 billion, while South Korea slashed holdings 25 percent this year to $50 billion."
as US consumers, we absolutely depend on foreigners subsidizing the pathalogical over-consumption beyond our means that has brought the current credit market crisis to the fore. THE HUGE TRADE DEFICITS WE HAVE WITH FOREIGNERS DEMAND THAT THEY DO NOT DO WHAT YOU SUGGEST THE US DOES TO THEM - "CUTTING THE HANDOUTS".
it is not completely unexpected that those who have done the least due diligence most frequently open their mouths and make baseless claims or suggestions, as you have done, so i end this on my behalf without further ado. | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/12/2007 3:33:22 AM | We would't know that Mars atmosphere is less than 5% Oxygen if it wasnt for space exploration (reference; COSMOS,Carl Sagan). Space exploration is necessary to findout inadvance if a planet is hospitable to complex life like mammals/humans.
I think the majority of the fruits of Space Science was harvested long ago. The recent experiments are less significant then the major advances of the Apollo era. When man figured out what could be done. Unfortunately, the technology or using rockets to propell man into orbit and beyond is still very dangerous and costly. It is not appropriate technoloy for sending colonies to the Moon or Space cities. I designed my own space craft that would use compressed Nitrogen ( fuel that does not combust). The shuttle would be a lot smaller and lighter and easier to build for the masses. There's a photo of it on my profile.
The Microwave oven is the indirect result of the Space Race. If you've ever had microwave popcorn or used one to re-heat a pizza for breakfast. Maybe that's something to be happy about ? | |
|
| Is space exploration still necessary??
Posted: 9/12/2007 5:46:38 AM |
So you can't use the argument that NASA is helping to cure cancer and save people's lives to justify funding NASA.
I've never heard them make those arguments. | |
|
Home
login 
