Nasa

[Thorne]

Corporations and Individualists are unlikely to try for getting land in space unless the claim laws change.

But if the governments aren't going into space, how can they stop the claims? Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and so forth.

As far as it goes with democracy, if change isn't occurring its because people aren't making it happen. This isn't as easy as it sounds but its certainly possible in a democracy, in a monarchy the main methods of policy changes were executions and civil wars.

I think there's been a lot of change in the democracies lately. Unfortunately, the changes I've seen haven't been for the better. More restrictions, less liberty, less governing but more government, less innovation, more baby-sitting. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Geez, I'm just full of platitudes today, aren't I?

[gagged_Louise]

I think they should be kept substantially funded. Obviously there's more urgent projects down here at present than refiring a programme of sending astronauts to the moon and, later, Mars (apparently NASA lost the original designs for the Saturn V rocket and so on, so the technology to send manned craft to moons and planets will have to be largely reinvented and rebuilt) but the scientific gains by NASA, ESA and other space agencies have been simply amazing, and the space race has had a rcih overspill into other uses of the technology that they came up with or helped fund.

The internet as we know it and modern computer wiring are, to a large extent, by-products of the space race and the military build-up that it was closely tied to: running rockets and satellites in real time far beyond the earth, and communicating with space crews and unmanned probes, plainly forced development of new and more powerful computer systems and radio links, monitors, circuits and network services. Without the Apollos. no Apple PC and no xboxes. So space exploration pays off in technical advance. I hope the fund cuts will not prove to be a really long-term trend.

There isn't going to be a large-scale colonization of Mars in the present century, in such a way that it could house any major emigration of this packed planet. The reason is simple: Mars is a very inhospitable place and any settling projects there will require big efforts before there will be anything like a permanently manned base or Martian villages under glass domes. And even putting the first men on Mars won't necessarily be a one-nation affair. Lion is just right in saying we need cooperation and joint efforts to keep up space exploration.

[lucy]

How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?

I am quite interested in the opinions on this.

Not that it's my piece of cake since it ain't my money, but i think that cash can be spent better somewhere else, or - even better, because you probably take that money from your children and grandchildren by leaving them mountains of depts - not at all.
Bases on the moon? On mars? What for? Just because we're too darn stupid to take care of the one base we have?

[steelish]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".

Reason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.

Reason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.

Reason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.

Reason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).

Reason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.

Reason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.

Reason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.

Reason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.

Reason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.

[Thorne]

[B]Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space[/B

Great job, steelish! I can't disagree with any of these, except maybe #7, the diplomacy one. Seems to me a silly reason for anything, trying to show up your neighbor.

I would probably place #5 and #4 at the top of my list, with #10 linked to #4. The whole reason for colonizing would be to spread the human race out so that it could survive a cataclysmic impact of the Earth.

For those interested in such, I highly recommend Phil Plait's book "Death From the Skies" which lists a lot of the stuff out there that is capable of destroying our culture, our civilization or even the whole planet, not least of which is our own Sun. It wouldn't hurt to have a few colonies further out than we are.

[steelish]

Hmmm...I don't think of the diplomacy as a one-upmanship so much as a "see what man is possible of doing" sort of thing, prompting others to try to reach for the stars as well. I guess I view the world differently than others and tend to look more towards positive influences. If I see an accomplishment - whether it be from neighbor, another country or even a "foe" - I analyze and wonder if I myself am capable of such a thing (and also if I desire to do it) and if so...how to go about accomplishing it.

[lucy]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".

Yup. Right. And the resources we use to do that won't be available for other, maybe more important projects and the pollution created in the process will tip our Earth just a bit more towards the edge. Towards the edge of becoming inhospitable to humans, that is, i'm not worried at all about the planet as a whole.
Besides, given humankind’s (read: moslty Europe’s and America’s) truly fantastic record of colonization we probably shouldn’t attempt to fuck up yet another place, even if it is a barren one and we can’t slaughter or enslave a couple of million natives and kill their cultures in the process.

[BReason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.

Ok, as i said already: It's your money. If you think sending people to Mars gives you a strategical advantage, go for it. I'm Swiss, i don't give a damn whether you can watch me undress in my bedroom from 50 km above.
Given recent events one would think that the gathering of intelligence is not the problem, but processing it is.

[BReason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.

Sorry, that’s boys stuff. My dick’s longer than your dick. Go for it, if you can’t find a better way to spend your money.

[BReason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.

Uh huh. Kinda like the chicken or egg question, isn’t it? In order to be able to colonize space to get at the resources we need to get at the resources so we can colonize space.
Or did i get that wrong and it was that the other way round?

[BReason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).

Yup, good reason. Can be perfectly done without sending anybody into orbit. And much cheaper, because Austronauts are heavy and they need a lot of stuff while up there, thus making it expensive. Oh, and don’t tell me that Austronauts where needed to repair Hubble. For the same amount of money who was spent to do that (all costs included, not just that one flight) several Hubbles telescopes could probably have been built.

[BReason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.

That could all be done without going to space. IF there were the right incentives. If all the brainpower spent on sending 80kg human bone and flesh in orbit would be spent on researching, say, new materials for prosthetic devices would have a much larger spin off. In the meantime, most countries drastically cap their spending on basic research, thus capping also the basis for future practical research.

[BReason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.

Yup, good reason. Do it, but don’t send people. Personally i don’t care too much about the survival of the human race. Any survival is just temporary anyway.

[BReason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.

I doubt that. And if we do, they’ll probably not recognize us as intelligent, mwahahaha....

Furthermore, with our record of dealing with other beings, we’ll probably fuck it up as usual. I guess it would be better for everybody and –thing involved if we didn’t find intelligent life.

[BReason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.

We wouldn't miss a thing if it hadn't been invented. For example, the web (which originated at the CERN, if i’m not misstaken)
And people do still die in hurricanes, just because they have no means of building houses that can withstand a hurricane. Even more lives could be saved if cars were banned, by the way.... Or some money spent on fighting malaria. Or money being spent to provide children with clean drinking water. Or. Or. Or. The list goes on....
As for the war in Iraq: All your fancy satellites haven’t prevented you from entering a useless war in the first place. But of course that is just my humble opinion.

[BReason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.

Given human nature as it is, this is not whimsical at all. In fact, this is the only point i completely agree with you

I’d just say: Leave the astronauts on the ground for the time being, just because sending them up is extremely expensive and not really necessary, care about other problems first, and if and when they are solved, think about it all again.

[steelish]

When the money used for space exploration is totalled up and presented as a single sum, it looks like a lot of money that one is then tempted to apply to other purposes. That is a deception. In the United States, the federal government each year spends less than 1% of its budget on space exploration, and more than 30% of the budget helping the poor in this country. That means that if the space program were completely eliminated, a poor person instead of getting $1.00 would then get $1.03. That does not seem like the extra help they really need to save them.

What would we lose for giving the extra 3 cents to the poor (or some other program)? Well for one thing without the space program you and I could not be having this online conversation because there would be no communications satellites. No one ever said the web originated due to space exploration...it's simply made possible because of it. There would be no weather satellites so there would be little or no warning of hurricanes or typhoons. I'm not sure about where you're from, but in the United States it is now unusual for a lot of lives to be lost in a hurricane, whereas in the past we could lose thousands of lives to these storms. The difference is satellite surveillance of weather systems. We would certainly know and understand less about our solar system and universe without the space probes and orbiting telescopes provided by space exploration. We would also understand less about the earth, about ecological systems, about efficient ways of growing crops and controlling pollution.

The reality is that the space program has done a lot to save the earth, save lives, feed people, and bring us together through closer communication. The space program has shown us an example of how to solve seemingly impossible problems. We should use this example to help us solve other difficult problems, like world hunger. It is a mistake to say that since we have problems that we haven't solved, we should stop solving other problems as well.

It is also ironic to claim that we want to save the present and forget the future. What do you do tomorrow, when the neglected future has become the present?

[Thorne]

I’d just say: Leave the astronauts on the ground for the time being, just because sending them up is extremely expensive and not really necessary, care about other problems first, and if and when they are solved, think about it all again.

A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

[SadisticNature]

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space


Reason Number 10
Colonization: it's a long shot, but there are serious people who still claim that we can travel to mars and turn it into livable space for humankind. The process is called "terraforming".

Reason Number 9
Intelligence Surveillance: Ok maybe we wouldn't bother placing a spy satellite over the Hawaiian Tropics contest (then again maybe we would) but the very first truly functional (i.e. non-experimental) satellite was a U.S. spy satellite. This was the Corona series, first operational in August of 1960. The U.S. maintained a strong lead in this super-secret technology throughout the cold war and it was the only distinct intelligence advantage this nation ever really had. Since the U.S. won the cold war, you simply can't dismiss the importance of this capability.

Reason Number 8
International Diplomacy: this one speaks for itself. It's the only reason we went to the moon.

Reason Number 7
Natural Resources: this one may be reaching, but there are people who believe that we would want to mine the asteroids & the moon for minerals. The most credible argument for this is assuming we would want to build a huge space structure and wouldn't want to have to loft the raw material into earth orbit or higher on rocket power.

Reason Number 6
Researching the universe: this one also speaks for itself. The discoveries and observations made from the Hubble telescope alone are staggering, and could never have been made from earth because of the obscuring effect of the atmosphere.
There are new discoveries being made every day, such as finding planets around other stars and discovering the true structure of the outer solar system (the Kuiper belt).

Reason Number 5
Technology Spin-Offs: this also speaks for itself, although the list of new technologies just goes on and on and on. These new technologies mean new industries, new jobs, and saved lives. For example, kidney dialysis, which has kept (and still keeps) countless people alive, came from the Apollo program. A new artificial heart came from technology used in Space Shuttle. New insulin pumps can eliminate the need for injections for diabetics, and the space program is constantly producing new materials for prosthetic devices.

Reason Number 4
Researching the sun, moon, and planets: - planetary probes like Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Pathfinder landers on Mars, Magellan probe to Venus, these and others have all changed our entire view of the solar system and all the planets. Nothing else has ever given us the close-up view of the planets or their moons. For example, no telescope could ever have shown us the volcanoes on Jupiter's inner moon Io or the ice on Jupiter's second moon Europa. Nothing could ever have given us the clue that there could be life on those moons, aside from the space probes we've sent.
With these probes and the new, powerful orbiting telescopes we've put in place, we are updating our once-simple view of the solar system - learning about the many asteroids and comets and their complex orbits. We are only now becoming aware that an asteroid or comet may have been the end of the dinosaurs, and could be the end of us. By studying our solar system, knowing what's there and what threatens us, and devising the capability of averting disaster, space exploration could mean the very survival of the human race.

We may care very much some day about this reason for space exploration.

Reason Number 3
Marvin the Martian's autograph: well maybe not his, but the more we learn about our solar system and the universe the more likely it is that we'll someday contact intelligent life.

Reason Number 2
Satellites in orbit: The biggie in my opinion - you would not be reading this page if it weren't for communications satellites that make the world wide web possible. Thousands and thousands of lives would be lost each year to hurricanes if it weren't for weather forecasting satellites. Even the war in Iraq would have come out differently (and not in favor of the allies) if it weren't for satellite positioning capabilities. The civilized world owes much of what it is today to satellite technology.

Reason Number 1
Because it's there: This one may seem whimsical but it is not. The society that stops exploring and begins to stagnate begins to die. It is only through the constant effort to learn and to achieve that we remain vigorous, bright, and strong. The fact that we don't know yet what is out there, and the fact that space represents our final limitation, is reason enough for us to strive to master it. Note that the same could be said for the ocean floor.

Reason #10: Disagree about long shot; with the steady increase of technology and rapid improvements in atmosphere science, I'm quite convinced terraforming is a matter of when not if.

Reason #9: I actually think the Cold War was one because capitalism and democracy have principles that are adhered to, while actually communism lasted less than 6 months in the USSR. One of the fundamental pillars of communism as proposed by Lenin was the absence of a national army, but rather a military role in everyone's life through the use of militia in a largely defensive role. By Spring of 1918 the USSR had a standing army, and by the time the cold war began it was using military force around the world. Furthermore, the KGB was generally considered the best intelligence service in the world, so if the war was largely about information its hard to imagine the US winning.

Reason #8: This is kind of awkward, if space travel needs to be about International Diplomacy should we abandon the idea of national space programs and conduct international efforts through mutually funded programs?

Reason #7: This is inevitable. We will continue to want non-renewable resources long after those resources are exhausted on Earth.

Reason #6: Agree

Reason #5: Agree. Also don't forget the ballpoint pen which is the best selling of all these inventions :P

Reason #4: Agree.

Reason #3: Humorous way of putting it. I'd rank this far lower, space programs are valuable even if Earth is the only life sustaining planet in the universe.

Reason #2: Problem is we already have this and no one is shutting it down.

Reason #1: Agree in both content and ranking.

[SadisticNature]

A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I also disagree strongly with your view of how the new world evolved but that is a whole thread of its own.

[denuseri]

Lets not forget the other reason that no one is mentioning.

A) Statistically speaking it is highly doubtful that we are the only sentient species in the small region of space within our own galaxy.

B) Theory of relativity aside it is also statistically imporbable that most other setient species wont one day decide to expand on their own and put their eggs in more than one basket.

C) The species that develops the technology to do this before the others will have a great advantage over the species that stays planet bound and squanders their rescources on hedonist pursuits over interplanetary expansion.

D) Based upon the known historical evidence here on our own planet, there is nothing to sugest that evolutionary expansion between stars is nessesarally going to be any more peaceful that evolutionaray expansion was here on earth between different regions.

Do you want to be the spannish conquistadors or the mayans in the above enevitable scenario?

It is simple common sence to expand off planet as soon as possible.

[lucy]

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.

Whether if those who push the boundaries are those who really care about the human race or whether they're just satisfying their egos is of course a totally different question. Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?
Who cares about the human race more, the pioneer who takes land that doesn't belong to him or the farmer's wife who stays behind and raises her children?

Btw, the one that flocked into America when it was still a 'frontier' (to white Europeans only, of course, native Americans probably didn't think of it as that, but again, a whole different topic) weren't exactly the brightest but the poorest and those who didn't have much of another choice left.

C) The species that develops the technology to do this before the others will have a great advantage over the species that stays planet bound and squanders their rescources on hedonist pursuits over interplanetary expansion.

Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.

Do you want to be the spannish conquistadors or the mayans in the above enevitable scenario?

Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

[Thorne]

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

[Thorne]

Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.

Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.

Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?

It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

[SadisticNature]

Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.


It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

If the enemy is a country completely incapable of being a threat to a superpower and the superpower attacks it anyways and then trades food for oil (at a bad rate) in a closed market where other countries can't make better bids, then it seems to me the general is perpetuating that suffering. Particularly since the government was involved in installing the dictator its now removing in the first place.

But we digress.

[SadisticNature]

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.


It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.


I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money. You aren't arguing about personal donations you're arguing about government spending. And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

[denuseri]

We have also fortunately allowed ourselves the freedom to say what we wish when it comes to just about anything short of inciting a riot...including what if anything our government does or does not do with the money that we give it.


As for perpetuating a future for our species in space and being prepared for the eventuality of exosolar contact or the spread of nationhoods into space...."he who seeks peace should prepare for war".

[Thorne]

And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

No, I'm arguing that the government should spend the money in a manner which is representative of the taxpayers. Granted, certain funding must be maintained, regardless, for purposes of national security. Others, however, are discretionary, and can be handled differently. Actually, I would think that NASA would fall into both of these.

But what I would really like to see is an optional tax form, which the taxpayer can fill out if he wishes, allowing him to request where the discretionary portion of his tax money is spent. So if we assume that, say 30% of my taxes are considered (by the government) to be discretionary, I can select maybe 50% of it goes to NASA and 50% to general science funding. This could even be just guidelines, not binding in any way but giving me at least some sense that some of my tax dollars are being used as I want them to be. Probably a silly idea, and extremely doubtful that it would be implemented, but hell, I can fantasize, can't I?

[steelish]

Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.

I believe you're confusing intelligence with mercifulness. They do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. A "higher" species might view us along the same lines as we view a cockroach. I bet you would kill a cockroach that's in your home. You've probably even sprayed for bugs.

[steelish]

Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

Not necessarily. What we should prepare for is the possible need to communicate with another species and the likely only way to be able to do that is to understand as much as we possibly can of space and our surroundings. We cannot hope to communicate "intelligently" with an interplanetary species if we have a narrow view of the universe.

Yes, there is a lot of bloodshed amongst humans. There will always be as long as we do not attempt to understand each other. By the same token, if we do not attempt to understand the universe and the hardships that face an interplanetary species, aren't we responsible for any misunderstandings we bring to the table?

[steelish]

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money.

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

[SadisticNature]

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself? What about medicare? What about medicaid? What about social security?

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

[steelish]

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicare?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicaid?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about social security?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

[SadisticNature]

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.

[DuncanONeil]

Now that I heard about it. It sucks! And in my estimation quite stupid!!

How do you feel about funding for the NASA program being discontinued?

I am quite interested in the opinions on this.

[DuncanONeil]

Than it is too late to fix anything!

BTB what has this to do with NASA?

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.

[SadisticNature]

Your standards for tangents that result from normal discussion in a thread seems to be they are ok, as long as you agree with them. The minute you disagree you criticize the post. The point was this was replying to a grossly erroneous "fact" (I should probably call it a fiction) that was posted in this thread. Just because such errors are off topic doesnt' mean it should be fine to post the error and not fine to correct it. Just because such errors support ones world view doesn't mean it should be fine to post the error as truth and not fine to correct it.

Than it is too late to fix anything!

BTB what has this to do with NASA?

[DuncanONeil]

Ok! What was the erroneous fact?

Your standards for tangents that result from normal discussion in a thread seems to be they are ok, as long as you agree with them. The minute you disagree you criticize the post. The point was this was replying to a grossly erroneous "fact" (I should probably call it a fiction) that was posted in this thread. Just because such errors are off topic doesnt' mean it should be fine to post the error and not fine to correct it. Just because such errors support ones world view doesn't mean it should be fine to post the error as truth and not fine to correct it.

[denuseri]

Just some FYI:



"CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - President Barack Obama boldly predicted Thursday his new plans for space exploration would lead American astronauts on historic, almost fantastic journeys to an asteroid and then to Mars - and in his lifetime - relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

"I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips starting with a landing on an asteroid - a colossal feat in itself - before the long-dreamed-of expedition to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the impending termination of space shuttle flights.

His prediction was reminiscent of President John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1961, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth." That goal was fulfilled in 1969.

Obama did not predict a Mars landing soon. But he said that by 2025, the nation would have a new spacecraft "designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space."

"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

The biggest criticisms of Obama's plans have been that they have lacked details and goals. Thursday's speech was an attempt to answer, especially since an asteroid is the next step away from Earth's reach.

Asteroids zip by Earth fairly often and have occasionally smacked the planet with disastrous results. For example, asteroids have been blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Landing on an asteroid would give scientists a better idea of how to handle a future killer asteroid that could wipe out much of life on Earth. Also, it would be a feat sure to win great attention - and there is far less gravity than the moon, meaning it would be easier and cheaper to leave.

"I think he said all the right things" in declaring a commitment to space exploration, said George Washington University space scholar John Logsdon, who has served on several NASA advisory boards. "I don't know what more you could have asked for."

But several Republicans, including Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, assailed Obama's plan and speech, calling his plans "job-killing."

"The president's new plans for NASA are flat-out irresponsible," Vitter said. "He has evidently decided ... that it's time for us to simply walk away from manned space exploration for the foreseeable future, with no clear timeline for returning or for achieving any of our goals for deep space exploration."

Obama said he was "100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future." He outlined plans for federal spending to bring more private companies into space exploration following the soon-to-end space shuttle program.

He acknowledged criticism for his drastic changes to the space agency's direction. But, he said, "The bottom line is: Nobody is more committed to manned space flight, the human exploration of space, than I am. But we've got to do it in a smart way; we can't keep doing the same old things as before."

Obama said the space program is not a luxury but a necessity for the United States.

He noted that the Kennedy Space Center has inspired the nation and the world for half a century. He said NASA represents what it means to be American - "reaching for new heights and reaching for what's possible" - and is not close to its final days.

Obama sought to explain why he aborted President George W. Bush's return-to-the moon plan in favor of a complicated system of public-and-private flights that would go elsewhere in space, with details still to be worked out.

"We've been there before," Obama said of the nation's moon landings decades ago. "There's a lot more of space to explore."

He said his administration would support continued manned exploration of space "not just with dollars, but with clear aims and a larger purpose."

The Obama space plan relies on private companies to fly to the space station, giving them almost $6 billion to build their own rockets and ships. It also extends the space station's life by five years and puts billions into research to eventually develop new government rocket ships for future missions to a nearby asteroid, to the moon, to Martian moons or other points in space. Those stops would be stepping stones on an eventual mission to Mars itself.

Addressing concerns of job losses to space program workers, particularly in Florida, Obama said that "despite some reports to the contrary," his plan would add more than 2,500 jobs to the Cape Canaveral region over the next two years than would the plan worked out by his predecessor.

"We'll modernize the Kennedy Space Center, creating jobs as we upgrade launch facilities. And there is potential for even more job creation as companies in Florida and across America compete to be part of a new space transportation industry.

"This holds the promise of generating more than 10,000 jobs nationwide over the next few years. Many of these jobs will be created in Florida, an area primed to lead in this competition," he said.

Among his most vocal critics has been Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Obama did not mention Armstrong, who did not attend the speech, but he did praise Buzz Aldrin, one of Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmates.

Aldrin did attend the speech - flying in with Obama on Air Force One.

Obama also said his administration would rescue a small part of the moon program: its Orion crew capsule.

But instead of taking four astronauts to the moon, the not-yet-built Orion will be slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod for the space station.

Obama spoke in the vast launch complex's Operations and Checkout building - the place where Orion is scheduled to be eventually prepared for launch.

The president said, "This Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room."

White House science adviser John Holdren summed up Obama's program as "a faster pace in space, more missions to more destinations sooner at lower cost.""

The above quoted reference is from contributions to The Associated Press made by S. Borenstein & E. Werner.