Poll: Should we explore space?

[Chaotic42]

Westwood One did a "man on the street" bit and every woman they asked was against space exploration, almost all of the were yelling about it. All of the men basically said "yeah, it's cool".

Since there are only like 5 women on these forums, I won't bother putting a male/female poll. What do you think? Should we (as humans, not as Americans) explore space?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I'm all for shooting some people into space

We can't get very far with current technology, but near the end of this century we might be able to kick humans beyond the outer border.

 

[CFster]

Still no cure for cancer.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

Is that your prerequisite for going to space?

 

[Analog]

To go boldly, where no man has gone before!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Absolutely yes, Stop spending money on Iraq and invest more into the space program.
this ought to help advance our technology.
Perhaps it would hasten the development of new engine technology to provide a fuel efficient & reliable supersonic (& some day hypersonic) jumbo jet.
Money invested in NASA is not wasted. It has lead to great discoveries in the past, and I believe it will lead to great discoveries in the future (by discoveries .. I mean technologies that can improve the quality of life, such as more efficient refrigerants, new alloys, new engines, better solar technology etc ...)

 

[TheCorm]

Theres enough people on this planet to explore space and still concentrate on more worldly concerns such as war, exploration of the seas, hunger, medical breakthroughs etc.

I think that we will have a man on Mars by the mid 21st century, probably earlier, but I'm not sure when we will end up leaving our solar system....whoever volunteers for it has a long journey ahead....although....a damn good one i'm sure!

Jamie

 

[aircooled]

Yes, but let private companies sponser it and they can have their logo's plastered all over the space craft.

 

[SilentZero]

Im all for space exploration and advancement now.

 

[beyonddc]

I say yes, but sometime later this century when the enconomy gets better.

In this tight enconomy we have, that's not just USA, that's include many other countries also.
Anyway, how would us have enough money to support this extremely big budget space program?
I rather the government spend more money onto something else right now to improve our quality of life @ this moment.

 

[damiano]

yes we should
might find some interesting stuff out there

 

[Pliablemoose]

Need to shift the emphasis to robotics rather than manned missions, it's cheaper & we can do more missions.

 

[DurocShark]

Absofrigginlutely!!!

But manned missions ARE necessary to get the public support. It's hard to get excited about sending a hunk of metal to another planet, but we get fired up when a person goes.

 

[Schadenfroh]

if you cant make a profit or a profit in the future, dont do it

 

[LuckyTaxi]

Originally posted by: CFster
Still no cure for cancer.

don't forget aids and the other deadly diseases
oh yea, our education is going down the toilet, yet we wanna see if there was life on mars?

 

[rh71]

LOL, I was about to reply "yeah, it's cool!" before reading what you posted...

About that cure for aids thing... there are different types of scientists... for different purposes.

 

[beyonddc]

Originally posted by: rh71
LOL, I was about to reply "yeah, it's cool!" before reading what you posted...

About that cure for aids thing... there are different types of scientists... for different purposes.

Different scientists, different purposes. You're true on that, but it still relates within the budget spending. I rather the government spend more money on medical research which can save people lives than spend more money on space research. I know both of them will benefits us in the future, but at the moment, I believe medical research is more important than space research.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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)

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
To go boldly, where no man has gone before!

The women's room!

 

[Amused]

The old and tired "we should fix things on Earth first" is just stupid. What if Europeans had said that instead of striking out and exploring? We'd have never found the New World.

Hell, what if the first men had said that? We'd have never left Africa.

No matter where we go, though, A station on the Moon is vital. It would be a micro-G launching platform for any further missions.

 

[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.