On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Yeah, we should spend that money on killing each other, right? We really don't have any real problems down here on Earth. There is enough food, water and space to live in for everyone, the problem is uneducated countries, ignorant fools in educated countries and corrupt governments (about every government in the whole world) who don't give a damn about the average Joe, let alone about advancing our species and securing the safety of the whole planet, but only care whether they can afford to buy a third yacht or a second private jet and how to get the most votes for the next election so they can cash in again (if it's even a country that has elections).
I won't say anything about the budget for NASA as others have done that, but there is no limit as to what increased knowledge can provide for us (as has been pointed out by several others). The moment we stop desiring more knowledge is the moment we stop being human and become mere animals instead.
The politicians need to consider NASA as an investment: you give them money and freedom, and they will make some of the coolest stuff around which will somehow find its way into our homes.
Ofc, I am fine with politicians worrying about corruption and wasted funding, but that can be monitored without affecting the freedom of engineers and scientists.
Super bummed that the financial crisis has hit the space program. One can only hope (if you're logical and pursue knowledge) that some money gets put back into the study and exploration of the cosmos. Sagan would be ashamed and upset I'm sure.
On September 04 2011 06:49 Mortal wrote: Super bummed that the financial crisis has hit the space program. One can only hope (if you're logical and pursue knowledge) that some money gets put back into the study and exploration of the cosmos.
You don't even have to care to pursue knowledge. The cost-benefit analysis alone makes NASA worthwhile.
Oh well, guess we'll have to look to China for the next innovations in space...
On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Yeah, we should spend that money on killing each other, right? We really don't have any real problems down here on Earth. There is enough food, water and space to live in for everyone, the problem is uneducated countries, ignorant fools in educated countries and corrupt governments (about every government in the whole world) who don't give a damn about the average Joe, let alone about advancing our species and securing the safety of the whole planet, but only care whether they can afford to buy a third yacht or a second private jet and how to get the most votes for the next election so they can cash in again (if it's even a country that has elections).
I won't say anything about the budget for NASA as others have done that, but there is no limit as to what increased knowledge can provide for us (as has been pointed out by several others). The moment we stop desiring more knowledge is the moment we stop being human and become mere animals instead.
We are animals no matter what you say and as animals we should care more about the world/environment we evolved on than a vaccuum. Yes space is important, but you're lacking respect for Earth if you act like NASA should keep getting money from a government that is getting fucked by not practicing safe sex
space is important yO, but countries need to fix their own problems so our children don't inherit them
I think its good there scaling down on launches even after the first one, I think the American people are more important at the moment than space exploration. Some people will be upset but those aren't the people that got laid off and have been looking for work for two years.
I love space exploration and the thought of getting someone onto another planet for the first time just as much as anyone but you really have to draw the line somewhere, there's only so many tax dollars to shove around, and keeping families, homes and businesses together far outweigh the hit in my opinion and maybe the rest of the world can step it up a bit in our decline for the coming decade or two.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
Shouldn't you have made TINY really small as opposed to bold?
Lol'd - after you wrote that I was like hearing myself growling TINY(!!!) in the above post.
Anyway. Like someone above me said, never cut money on research. The logical choice, in a time when we are the aggressors and not defenders, would be to cut money on useless militarism.
I would like to see more cooperation between different countries around the world to fund these huge space programs. NASA simply doesn't have the budget to go at it alone anymore.
As someone who worked for NASA, I have to say that most of their wounds are self-inflicted. Anyone who believes their problems are due to a lack of funding doesn't understand the the underlying problems IMO.
Don't believe me?
Look at the space shuttle. The space shuttle was designed as a space plane with the idea that it would reduce the cost of space travel significantly. It was supposed to make spaceflight routine. The concept of operations was for 2 launches a month. What we got was a machine that didn't much better than two missions a year on average, costed 500 million per launch and lost 2 crews. It was a total dismal failure. Yet the program dragged in for years. Billions of dollars wasted with little or no benefit to anyone.
Why did this happen? Politics. The shuttle was nixons baby. We didn't have apollo any more, so by god were going to have a space plane! Why wasn't the program shuttered after the realization that it didn't meet it's ambitious requirements? Because NASA distributed the manufacturing and production to multiple influential congressional districts that treat it like a soviet style jobs program.
NASA is a shell these days. Another government jobs program clinging in with no purpose and no direction. Every few years when we get a new president, they draw new spaceships to bring in votes for the next election. I am seriously concerned for the future of NASA, and doubtful that it will ever provide us with the benefit it once did during the apollo program.
On September 04 2011 08:01 deadjawa wrote: As someone who worked for NASA, I have to say that most of their wounds are self-inflicted. Anyone who believes their problems are due to a lack of funding doesn't understand the the underlying problems IMO.
Don't believe me?
Look at the space shuttle. The space shuttle was designed as a space plane with the idea that it would reduce the cost of space travel significantly. It was supposed to make spaceflight routine. The concept of operations was for 2 launches a month. What we got was a machine that didn't much better than two missions a year on average, costed 500 million per launch and lost 2 crews. It was a total dismal failure. Yet the program dragged in for years. Billions of dollars wasted with little or no benefit to anyone.
Why did this happen? Politics. The shuttle was nixons baby. We didn't have apollo any more, so by god were going to have a space plane! Why wasn't the program shuttered after the realization that it didn't meet it's ambitious requirements? Because NASA distributed the manufacturing and production to multiple influential congressional districts that treat it like a soviet style jobs program.
Your observations are spot-on, but your conclusion doesn't follow. Yes, the reason why the space shuttle wasted so much money was politics. But that's the fault of Congress, not NASA.
You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
And why is the alternative always the military? The US could use quite a few extra dollars to spend on its citizens, less useful employed fucking around in space. The whole space race from the beginning was nothing but a propaganda tool part of the whole cold war. Now NASA is a living, breathing remnant from that era.
On September 04 2011 08:53 Catch]22 wrote: You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
This is quite ignorant of how scientific research actually works. Many times, research in one field yields to innovations in another.
The fact is, there's already plenty of research funding going into genetic and environmental research. Space research (and the assorted scientific benefits it yields), on the other hand, is overwhelmingly funded under NASA. Take that away and the money isn't going to end up funding other research programs, but will instead end up reducing the debt by irrelevant amounts (or, worse yet, towards more tax breaks and entitlement programs, since that's what the American people LOVE).
When the foundation set by NASA is sufficient for private companies to step in, then we can look to abolish it. They've taken baby steps in that direction, but they still have a long way to go. Until then, we benefit enormously from the pittance we spend towards space research.
On September 04 2011 08:53 Catch]22 wrote: You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
This is quite ignorant of how scientific research actually works. Many times, research in one field yields to innovations in another.
The fact is, there's already plenty of research funding going into genetic and environmental research. Space research (and the assorted scientific benefits it yields), on the other hand, is overwhelmingly funded under NASA. Take that away and the money isn't going to end up funding other research programs, but will instead end up reducing the debt by irrelevant amounts (or, worse yet, towards more tax breaks and entitlement programs, since that's what the American people LOVE).
When the foundation set by NASA is sufficient for private companies to step in, then we can look to abolish it. They've taken baby steps in that direction, but they still have a long way to go. Until then, we benefit enormously from the pittance we spend towards space research.
Sunprince is completely correct.
You know satellite television, cell phones, GPS devices? How about water filters, cordless power tools, safety grooving in concrete, adjustable smoke detectors, long distance phone calls, shoe insoles, ear thermometers, memory foam, scratch resistant lenses, and invisible braces? CAT scanners? Computer microchips? Freeze-dried food? Insulation? Joysticks? All thanks to NASA and the space program.
Awesome innovations come from needing to solve problems, and then applying those solutions elsewhere.
The United States needs to invest as heavily into the sciences and research and development as possible: it's literally the only thing we have a comparative advantage in, and it's the only thing that will allow us to remain a top country in the world. If we don't start re-investing into sciences soon, our terrible infrastructure is going to catch up with us, and we will fall way way behind. The only jobs that will remain in the U.S. are service jobs that can't be outsourced, cheaper labor is available in many other locations in the world, and as technology improves, outsourcing gets easier. If we invest in R.D. though, we can keep the tech jobs here in the U.S.
Also, the eventual future of mankind is in space, there's no alternative with finite resources on our planet. Investing for the long term is the only way to ensure our species' survival. While it might not happen in the next few hundred years, we only need to look to history to know that waiting until the last minute would be foolish.
We can't keep choosing the short term over the long term every time: we're dooming the generations that will come after us. I for one do not want to be among those responsible for making life on earth hell for our children, our children's children, their children, or anywhere down the line. I want life to be better for our children than it was for us.
Can I ask, why do you think NASA should be allocated billions of dollars anyway? The thought of zipping about the stars to meet new species and have sex with them sounds fun and everything, but a lifetime of loving sci-fi is a poor reason to allocate funds towards a programme that isn't really giving us tangible benefits right now. We can get satellites into space - isn't that all we need for the nonce? Do we really need a government funded mission to Mars, or a space station of the moon? What would either really give us?
Bit of Devil's Advocate in this post, but at the same time, the more I think of it, the harder it is to justify spending on the Space Programme when there is such a black hole in the economy, and even if there wasn't the funds could be spent on people who actually need it. More than willing to be sold on a good cause for national space programmes, though. I want me my Firefly.
Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? — Robert G. Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879) Section II, "Free Schools"
On September 04 2011 11:41 Sanctimonius wrote: Can I ask, why do you think NASA should be allocated billions of dollars anyway? The thought of zipping about the stars to meet new species and have sex with them sounds fun and everything, but a lifetime of loving sci-fi is a poor reason to allocate funds towards a programme that isn't really giving us tangible benefits right now. We can get satellites into space - isn't that all we need for the nonce? Do we really need a government funded mission to Mars, or a space station of the moon? What would either really give us?
Bit of Devil's Advocate in this post, but at the same time, the more I think of it, the harder it is to justify spending on the Space Programme when there is such a black hole in the economy, and even if there wasn't the funds could be spent on people who actually need it. More than willing to be sold on a good cause for national space programmes, though. I want me my Firefly.
Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
Read my post right above yours, I'll quote part of it here for your convenience.
You know satellite television, cell phones, GPS devices? How about water filters, cordless power tools, safety grooving in concrete, adjustable smoke detectors, long distance phone calls, shoe insoles, ear thermometers, memory foam, scratch resistant lenses, and invisible braces? CAT scanners? Computer microchips? Freeze-dried food? Insulation? Joysticks? All thanks to NASA and the space program.
Invest in NASA? You get all sorts of tangible side benefits in addition to the actual space program itself. This is how technology is invented: you have a problem that needs solving, so somebody solves the problem, and the technology used can be applied in other areas, so it is. If you don't have the problem, you don't get the tech. The space program has some of the most interesting and unique problems to solve anywhere, and that's why we get so much awesome stuff from it.
Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? — Robert G. Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879) Section II, "Free Schools"
It's so sad, every time I see the figures I think "What if...."
Our society would be so much more advanced if we would just stop attacking each other and spending money on war and invested in science. Hell, we don't even need to fully cut the military or anything, just a lot of the wasteful spending (like trying to police the world). I know for a fact we have tons of useless military bases spread out over Europe for example.
On September 04 2011 11:41 Sanctimonius wrote: Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
Thank you, Whitewing. I'll quote part of my post for your convenience, too. My point is that yes, space travel gives us side benefits. It can result in other things. Can't we get the same side benefits from the private sector, if they took over space R&D? Why does it have to be the government, and therefore the taxpayer, who pays for space travel on the off chance we get more side-benefits?
What's the point in a government launching a new rocket in 2017 that recycles most space shuttle components?
How does this innovate. How is this not '60 technology? Why not have NASA stop making this type of rockets? What's the point? And this is supposed to go to Mars or some asteroid?
There used to be this concept called Venture Star. What are they proposing now? Why can't politicians just cancel government run human space flight? No we fist had Bush cancel the Space Shuttle. Then they put in place a somewhat ambitious plan with no budget at all called Constellation. Then they slowly start to admit project Constellation is nonsense. Then finally they decide to cancel it and replace it with something more realistic. And now we have this. Are these all just tricks to slowly get rid of all this and avoiding the political backlash of just canceling the Shuttle outright and saying there's no reason to have anything government developed to replace it?
If NASA put the money to it they could discover alien life within 20 years, assuming it is there to be discovered. But apparently that has no priority. Pointlessly orbiting earth apparently does. I guess it is something military related.
Ooh and all the spin off product arguments are bogus. People at NASA know they are wrong. You don't need to accelerate an 80 meter high cylinder filled with fuel up to 2.1 km/s just to develop some of that spin off technology stuff. Human space flight is anti science and is just as much a waste as military spending. HSF is either military or recreational. So far it has not been scientific.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2SPL4.jpg)
