Poll: Should we explore space?

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
hmm. im the only one that voted "Yes, but in hundreds or thousands of years"

outer space will still be there hundreds of years from now, so no point in wasting money like this. 100 years from now, technology will be more improved and therefore it'll be more cost effective in the future, waaayy future. i'd rather they use that money to fix probs on earth rather than thinking about other planets. lets work on THIS planet first eh?

Unless of course we get struck by a comet or large asteroid, or a plague or warfare wipes us out first.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Semi other...


We should be spending more than we are, and much of that on robotic exploration. The rest goes towards research on advanced propulsion. In 50 years or so we will be in a better technological position for manned flight (maybe)

You really think that without the challenge of getting a human there and back that development will happen at the kind of pace that new tech was developed for Apollo?

Look how long it took to get an ion drive! The theory has been around for decates, but we just built it a few years ago.

As for profit, I think the technology developed for Apollo and other programs jumpstarted our tech industries. Good for the country and the economy!

I don't necessarily believe that just throwing money at medical research will make cures come any faster... If any of you work in IT, you know that it often happens that the more money a project has in the budget, the more screwed up the project gets.

I'm not saying that increasing medical research spending is a bad thing! Far from it! But it won't magically make cures appear either. A moderate increase would be nice, however, to help attract the best researchers to the most important causes.

Consider how the world works

There is what we would like to happen

There is what can happen

There is what will happen



I would like to have a more vital space program, but one that puts a person on a planet then hauls them back without the capability to create long term facility makes no sense to me. An extended stay ought to be a real option.

I would like to have seen the money spent attacking iraq to be divided up for research. A great deal for non-fossil fuel research, space research, physics, etc. however it is more valuable to the American public to harm than to learn. So be it.



So, since we are not (in the real world) going to spend a half trillion (or whatever) to do this, what can be done? First, not try to cross the Pacific Ocean in a canoe. We need to have advanced propulsion systems in place, and a way to deliver them to orbit for lauch. You can believe that the general public is not going to allow an earth based nuclear rocket to launch. So, we get a hundred old Saturn V's to do this? Try sending that bill to Congress. Now, if the Space Elevator were to be feasable (and it is looking better all the time) you can get ten thousand Sat V's worth of payload into orbit in short order, and for practically nothing outside of the cost of construction and maintance.

Once you have the ability to move men and machine into space, and back again, it is nothing to send a crew of workers up with modular components and assemble them. With that capability, you could construct an enormous nuclear powered ship in the more traditional sense. A vessel like that in SF, not some disposable tin can. You could send a continuous supply of resources to Mars. They could take low power orbits, and be low tech. Just shoot a lot of stuff in a tin can with attitude adjusters and a heat shield. Unmanned, who cares is water/food hits the ground hard as long as the container doesnt rupture. I am sure there are a whole host of alternative ideas that would be more efficient, but this is what COULD happen. So let's do it!!! Well, no, lets not. Why? Because the stuff does not exist. It has to be researched, then developed, then constructed. This takes two things. Time and money. If researchers are not attracted to this kind of project, it is because they wont have enough of both to bother with. The American people, like all others are impatient on the whole. They want Star Wars now, and they want it free, or at least cheap. They aren't going to get it.

Which brings us to what WILL happen.
I think Presidents and other leaders will push occasionally, mostly for political self gratification. A trifling sum will be procured, General Dynamics or Boeing or some company will look at it as a cash cow. We will have little innovation, because business cares not about progress, but about the annual stockholder meetings, and THEY care only if their shares are doing well this quarter. The public will rebel, the funding decreased. Then others will get on to the pols. to increase funding and the whole cycle continue. In the meantime, the general pool of knowlege will increase, and eventually the technology required to do this will come about anyway, but in an inefficient way and much delayed.

I think the smarter approach is a long term COMMITMENT. That will only be tolerated if it is not too costly, and not too visible. It makes too good a target for those with an agenda otherwise. This way we could have a substantial and permanent program in 50 years, not 150.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal
support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest
comes from various public and private sources. (source Laskerfoundation.com)

NASA's bugedt = 15 billion, private contibutions to (space exploration) probably quite low.

I think Bush's proposal is okay. A step forward. I think that we can do better then Mars in 2030 I'll be 44 by then. I would like to see 2020 maybe 2017. I think that a program that far in the future would stand a very small chance of suriving new presidents, bugedt meetings, and congress.

I just don't see the moon as be a great place to put a colony, Mars would be better. Great place for a telescope, a little geology research (composition of early solar system.) That is what we would do there short term. Mining the soil for fuisionable H-3 is a great proposal but not vaible until we have fuision plants then commercail investors will likely jump at the idea. Solar panels also very far off.

I would think a Mars colony would have access to greater recources.

IIRC mining the H-3 on the moon is going to be a serious undertaking to recover any meaningfull quantities.

I agree that the fusion ignition and containment problems need to be worked first to make the effort worthwhile. Unless significant resources are dumped into this effort it will be a while.

 

[Siddhartha]

The resources can be better spent here dealing with improving health care and education.

 

[Jfrag Teh Foul]

Stop spending money on Iraq and invest more into the space program.

We could start by sending you into space...

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
hmm. im the only one that voted "Yes, but in hundreds or thousands of years"

outer space will still be there hundreds of years from now, so no point in wasting money like this. 100 years from now, technology will be more improved and therefore it'll be more cost effective in the future, waaayy future. i'd rather they use that money to fix probs on earth rather than thinking about other planets. lets work on THIS planet first eh?

Yeah, you're right. We should instead spend all that money funding agricultural subsidies (yes, let's pay farmers to NOT grow tobacco) and feeding the homeless. Let's forget the fact that technology is developed when you actually try to accomplish something. In other words, we're not going to develop the hypothetical faster-than-light drive by sitting on our asses spending money on health care for "undocumented immigrants" or "guest workers".

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal
support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest
comes from various public and private sources. (source Laskerfoundation.com)

NASA's bugedt = 15 billion, private contibutions to (space exploration) probably quite low.

I think Bush's proposal is okay. A step forward. I think that we can do better then Mars in 2030 I'll be 44 by then. I would like to see 2020 maybe 2017. I think that a program that far in the future would stand a very small chance of suriving new presidents, bugedt meetings, and congress.

I just don't see the moon as be a great place to put a colony, Mars would be better. Great place for a telescope, a little geology research (composition of early solar system.) That is what we would do there short term. Mining the soil for fuisionable H-3 is a great proposal but not vaible until we have fuision plants then commercail investors will likely jump at the idea. Solar panels also very far off.

I would think a Mars colony would have access to greater recources.

Because the moon would be the perfect launching platform for all deep space missions.

But in the short term we aren't producing any space ships on the moon. Whatever we launch from the moon we have to take there in the first place. In that case it takes more resources. The moon would be a great place to put together the eventual large spaceships we send to off but not for small ones. THe moon for those that cannot be launched from earth in one piece.

We should have a comprehensive search for what amount of water is on the moon with an orbiter. Clementine found some evidence but we aren't sure where and how much. If their is water the prospects for a base become much better. With no water we have to take the hydrogen there from the Earth in whcih case I think the moon is a bad place for a base.

I think that the first manned missions can be done without lunar refueling, nuclear rockets, or any far off technologieis. Maybe we could develop both at the same time. Build base on the moon for the eventual larger missions. At the same time have those first 3-4 exploratory manned mars missions done by conventional rocket. I just don't think that NASA will be given enough money to do both so I go with the mars mission first lunar base second.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal
support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest
comes from various public and private sources. (source Laskerfoundation.com)

NASA's bugedt = 15 billion, private contibutions to (space exploration) probably quite low.

I think Bush's proposal is okay. A step forward. I think that we can do better then Mars in 2030 I'll be 44 by then. I would like to see 2020 maybe 2017. I think that a program that far in the future would stand a very small chance of suriving new presidents, bugedt meetings, and congress.

I just don't see the moon as be a great place to put a colony, Mars would be better. Great place for a telescope, a little geology research (composition of early solar system.) That is what we would do there short term. Mining the soil for fuisionable H-3 is a great proposal but not vaible until we have fuision plants then commercail investors will likely jump at the idea. Solar panels also very far off.

I would think a Mars colony would have access to greater recources.

Because the moon would be the perfect launching platform for all deep space missions.

But in the short term we aren't producing any space ships on the moon. Whatever we launch from the moon we have to take there in the first place. In that case it takes more resources. The moon would be a great place to put together the eventual large spaceships we send to off but not for small ones. THe moon for those that cannot be launched from earth in one piece.

We should have a comprehensive search for what amount of water is on the moon with an orbiter. Clementine found some evidence but we aren't sure where and how much. If their is water the prospects for a base become much better. With no water we have to take the hydrogen there from the Earth in whcih case I think the moon is a bad place for a base.

I think that the first manned missions can be done without lunar refueling, nuclear rockets, or any far off technologieis. Maybe we could develop both at the same time. Build base on the moon for the eventual larger missions. At the same time have those first 3-4 exploratory manned mars missions done by conventional rocket. I just don't think that NASA will be given enough money to do both so I go with the mars mission first lunar base second.

No matter what we do, the mars mission craft cannot be assembled on Earth. So the choice is: In orbit, or on the moon. The moon is a better choice.

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

It that because of a lack of money or because current techology can't idenify the root cause for cancer?

And what does you lame excuse have anything to do with space exploration?

 

[ScottyB]

We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

 

[Vic]

NASA = government subsidized scientific R&D, i.e. welfare for scientists

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal
support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest
comes from various public and private sources. (source Laskerfoundation.com)

NASA's bugedt = 15 billion, private contibutions to (space exploration) probably quite low.

I think Bush's proposal is okay. A step forward. I think that we can do better then Mars in 2030 I'll be 44 by then. I would like to see 2020 maybe 2017. I think that a program that far in the future would stand a very small chance of suriving new presidents, bugedt meetings, and congress.

I just don't see the moon as be a great place to put a colony, Mars would be better. Great place for a telescope, a little geology research (composition of early solar system.) That is what we would do there short term. Mining the soil for fuisionable H-3 is a great proposal but not vaible until we have fuision plants then commercail investors will likely jump at the idea. Solar panels also very far off.

I would think a Mars colony would have access to greater recources.

Because the moon would be the perfect launching platform for all deep space missions.

But in the short term we aren't producing any space ships on the moon. Whatever we launch from the moon we have to take there in the first place. In that case it takes more resources. The moon would be a great place to put together the eventual large spaceships we send to off but not for small ones. THe moon for those that cannot be launched from earth in one piece.

We should have a comprehensive search for what amount of water is on the moon with an orbiter. Clementine found some evidence but we aren't sure where and how much. If their is water the prospects for a base become much better. With no water we have to take the hydrogen there from the Earth in whcih case I think the moon is a bad place for a base.

I think that the first manned missions can be done without lunar refueling, nuclear rockets, or any far off technologieis. Maybe we could develop both at the same time. Build base on the moon for the eventual larger missions. At the same time have those first 3-4 exploratory manned mars missions done by conventional rocket. I just don't think that NASA will be given enough money to do both so I go with the mars mission first lunar base second.

No matter what we do, the mars mission craft cannot be assembled on Earth. So the choice is: In orbit, or on the moon. The moon is a better choice.

NASA developed one HERE. Called Mars-Semi Direct. Check out the Direct and 90-day proposals too. See what happended with daddy Bush's last proposal big nuclear expensive ship that was too expensive and voted down.

THe catch is you don't bring the oxygen for the return trip to Mars you get it there. First send the return vechile. Let it take the CO2 on Mars andyour H to make methane. This is an easy low energy reaction the reactor already developed and demonstrated by Zubrin before NASA. If you just take hydrogen to Mars you cut your return fuel weight by a factor of eight. Then the second ship is launched with the habitat once the return ship is full, no risk. You can disagree on the details but stuff along these lines is the best way to go I believe. The Semi-direct uses three rockets per mission for extra safety. Sort of a live of the land proposal. The lauches can be done with rockets about the same size as Saturn V's.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Vic
NASA = government subsidized scientific R&D, i.e. welfare for scientists

It is the good kind of welfare: middle class warfare!

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

Each carrier can't operate 365 days of every year. They have to put in to port for refits, crew rotation, etc.
Also, the world's oceans are a big place.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Hell yes!!

We've had centuries of way and debauchery and fighting over little sections of dirt on this planet. Frankly, I'm sick of it. So what if we don't have peace, perfect health, perfect education, etc? We'll quite likely not achieve that any time soon, a few of them due to simple human stupidity and stubborness, and I believe that the money could be MUCH better spent on other things. I'll take welfare for scientists over welfare for illegal immigrants and chronic drug users any day.

Originally posted by: jjyiz28
this reminds me of a twilight zone episode. where an astronaut was traveling like across solar system, took 60 years of his life, and when he finally returned to earth, found out that technology now allows traveling across solar system to take only 1 month. something like that

Actually, it was to the closest planet. I loved how ironic that ending was.

BTW, who were the tools that said we shouldn't go at all?

-- Jack

Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation.
-- Johnny Hart

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

Each carrier can't operate 365 days of every year. They have to put in to port for refits, crew rotation, etc.
Also, the world's oceans are a big place.

OK, so at any point, 7 out of the 10 are in operation. I'll admit.

BIG FSCKING DEAL! It dosn't matter how big the oceans are, no other country has the equivalent of 2, let alone 10, why do we need them? The world's oceans are indeed a big place, but we generally know where the hotspots are. It's not like one day, of a sudden Agentina is going to invade Brazil. With our sattelites we know when any national army moves a foot. When was thee last time we had to have a carrier in the south pacific, the carribean, or the north atlantic?

 

[Chaotic42]

I think we should open it up to businesses, with some government protection for things to keep things calm. Like limiting how much one company can mine, etc.

 

[brunswickite]

Yea going to space right now makes alot of sense... espicially when ~30 percent of Americans dont have health care and the economy is in the sh1tter, Also spending 400 billion on defense, which is more then all other countries around the world combined makes alot of sense too.

 

[bigalt]

i'm all for it as long as someone else is paying for it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: brunswickite
Yea going to space right now makes alot of sense... espicially when ~30 percent of Americans dont have health care and the economy is in the sh1tter, Also spending 400 billion on defense, which is more then all other countries around the world combined makes alot of sense too.

Well, this is only a billion dollar increase over 5 years. We spend more than that on lots of crap. This has some serious monetary benefits, but people have no intention of looking beyond today.

 

[matt426malm]

How about sending out that probe to Europa that got cancled. I think Europa has to have about as good a chance for life as Mars.Link

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We need to pull out of Iraq, cut the military's budget to 1/1000 of what it is now and spend the extra money on space travel.

And end up like a skinny little geek in a school yard full of bullies? No thanks. I have no wish to end up being the world's bitch.

Right

OMG WE ONLY HAVE 8 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS INSTEAD OF TEN!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!

Nevermind the French have the only other nuclear-power carrier in the world; India has one; and the UK has aicraft carriers, if you can call them that...they carry like 15 planes at most. Obviously the Russians and Chinese don't have a substantial navy at this point in time.

Personally I don't understand the need for ten aircraft carriers. Such wastes of money.

Each carrier can't operate 365 days of every year. They have to put in to port for refits, crew rotation, etc.
Also, the world's oceans are a big place.

OK, so at any point, 7 out of the 10 are in operation. I'll admit.

BIG FSCKING DEAL! It dosn't matter how big the oceans are, no other country has the equivalent of 2, let alone 10, why do we need them? The world's oceans are indeed a big place, but we generally know where the hotspots are. It's not like one day, of a sudden Agentina is going to invade Brazil. With our sattelites we know when any national army moves a foot. When was thee last time we had to have a carrier in the south pacific, the carribean, or the north atlantic?

Hotspots can move. It can be diffucult to know where the next one might crop up.
The U.S. operates fewer and fewer overseas bases these days. Carrier groups make sense because they can be moved where they are needed.

You also need to keep in mind that we help provide protection for other friendly nations that no longer have the resources to keep large surface fleets.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
How about sending out that probe to Europa that got cancled. I think Europa has to have about as good a chance for life as Mars.Link

Looking for life isn't that big of a deal to me.

What we need to do is establish colonies on the Moon. We need to use the Moon as a launching platform for asteroid mining operations. Asteroids and the moon both have lots of raw materials that would be great and would make us money.

Looking for life is frosting on the cake.