Why waste the money on space exploration... if there's anyone out there they can find us.
Space Exploration
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
On a side, non-political note, do YOU have any idea how many of the technologies we have today came from NASA? Quite a few.
Including, ear thermometers, tires, smoke detectors, water purification, safety grooving on roads, international communication (via satellite), today's athletic shoe design, and many others. NASA DOES have an effect on everyday life.
Beyond that, the search for knowledge is really the only real long term goal the human race has.
If you read carefully, my post did not say that NASA has not provided technologies. It's still a matter of debate whether these technologies could have been created cheaper... My argument is that it is pointless to send a human being to the Moon or Mars.
Robots are much cheaper and stimulate innovation. But even then, is an ear thermometer more important than the health of one American. Before you say yes, assume that that one American is your parent.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
On a side, non-political note, do YOU have any idea how many of the technologies we have today came from NASA? Quite a few.
Including, ear thermometers, tires, smoke detectors, water purification, safety grooving on roads, international communication (via satellite), today's athletic shoe design, and many others. NASA DOES have an effect on everyday life.
Beyond that, the search for knowledge is really the only real long term goal the human race has.
If you read carefully, my post did not say that NASA has not provided technologies. It's still a matter of debate whether these technologies could have been created cheaper... My argument is that it is pointless to send a human being to the Moon or Mars.
Robots are much cheaper and stimulate innovation. But even then, is an ear thermometer more important than the health of one American. Before you say yes, assume that that one American is your parent.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
On a side, non-political note, do YOU have any idea how many of the technologies we have today came from NASA? Quite a few.
Including, ear thermometers, tires, smoke detectors, water purification, safety grooving on roads, international communication (via satellite), today's athletic shoe design, and many others. NASA DOES have an effect on everyday life.
Beyond that, the search for knowledge is really the only real long term goal the human race has.
If you read carefully, my post did not say that NASA has not provided technologies. It's still a matter of debate whether these technologies could have been created cheaper... My argument is that it is pointless to send a human being to the Moon or Mars.
Robots are much cheaper and stimulate innovation. But even then, is an ear thermometer more important than the health of one American. Before you say yes, assume that that one American is your parent.
Well, I think about it this way. Assuming we aren't wiped out by some cataclysm, eventually us humans will need to leave the earth to survive. In a few hundred million years the sun will be too hot, and earths oceans will start to boil away. We will need to leave the earth some day.
Honestly it's beyond a pipe dream, but I wish the Mass Effect universe was real, I would be out there, where it's exciting, not here on earth.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
On a side, non-political note, do YOU have any idea how many of the technologies we have today came from NASA? Quite a few.
Including, ear thermometers, tires, smoke detectors, water purification, safety grooving on roads, international communication (via satellite), today's athletic shoe design, and many others. NASA DOES have an effect on everyday life.
Beyond that, the search for knowledge is really the only real long term goal the human race has.
If you read carefully, my post did not say that NASA has not provided technologies. It's still a matter of debate whether these technologies could have been created cheaper... My argument is that it is pointless to send a human being to the Moon or Mars.
Robots are much cheaper and stimulate innovation. But even then, is an ear thermometer more important than the health of one American. Before you say yes, assume that that one American is your parent.
Well, I think about it this way. Assuming we aren't wiped out by some cataclysm, eventually us humans will need to leave the earth to survive. In a few hundred million years the sun will be too hot, and earths oceans will start to boil away. We will need to leave the earth some day.
Honestly it's beyond a pipe dream, but I wish the Mass Effect universe was real, I would be out there, where it's exciting, not here on earth.
Space exploration is limited to pretty much the telescope when all things considered as humans are too fragile to endure space travel and all its variables. Until we are able to isolate ourselves from the multitudes of types of hostile environments out there and on each of the planets we will have to do so from afar via telescope.
I really enjoy looking at the magnificence of space and all its heavenly objects out there. Truly beautiful.
...Besides what good would it be to go somewhere else when we can't things right on this planet?
I really enjoy looking at the magnificence of space and all its heavenly objects out there. Truly beautiful.
...Besides what good would it be to go somewhere else when we can't things right on this planet?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
While I strongly favor space science (robotic missions) over Space Cowboy missions (sending people to Mars), a reality check is in order regarding the total that is being spent on space science and space exploration combined. NASA's budget is about $19B/yr, which is about 0.5% of the US Federal budget, and about 0.13% of the US GDP.
This amounts to a dollar a week per capita on average for US citizens. Total spending on space, averaged over world population is 11 cents per week per capita, or 1.5 cents per day.
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
While I strongly favor space science (robotic missions) over Space Cowboy missions (sending people to Mars), a reality check is in order regarding the total that is being spent on space science and space exploration combined. NASA's budget is about $19B/yr, which is about 0.5% of the US Federal budget, and about 0.13% of the US GDP.
This amounts to a dollar a week per capita on average for US citizens. Total spending on space, averaged over world population is 11 cents per week per capita, or 1.5 cents per day.
I'm not saying send humans to all the planets immediately, but someday it will hopefully be possible. Places like the Moon, and Mars at least. Someday in the distant future, the moon callisto is considered a prime candidate for a base to explore the rest of the Jovian, and Saturn systems.
Quote:
...and to maintain military superiority. We certainly don't want other countries, who may not be on our good side, to get the upper hand in space technology.
Nothing gets checks written faster than raising the scary possibility that THEY might get there first.
NASA wasted a perfectly good cold war running a taxi service to LEO when so much more could have been accomplished.
However, beyond about 22,000 miles above sea level (the orbital altitudes of geosynchronous satellites) there is not really any military application for space. People think of military moon-bases spying on, and launching missiles at, the enemy. But the fact is, it's just too far away to be useful.
But, like the "nonstick frying pan" argument, if it convinces people that space is worth more than the 15 cents a day that US citizens currently spend, I'm fine with the idea of fear that the communists will get there first acting as a motivator. Although I would prefer that more people appreciated the real values of space science.
...and to maintain military superiority. We certainly don't want other countries, who may not be on our good side, to get the upper hand in space technology.
Nothing gets checks written faster than raising the scary possibility that THEY might get there first.
NASA wasted a perfectly good cold war running a taxi service to LEO when so much more could have been accomplished.
However, beyond about 22,000 miles above sea level (the orbital altitudes of geosynchronous satellites) there is not really any military application for space. People think of military moon-bases spying on, and launching missiles at, the enemy. But the fact is, it's just too far away to be useful.
But, like the "nonstick frying pan" argument, if it convinces people that space is worth more than the 15 cents a day that US citizens currently spend, I'm fine with the idea of fear that the communists will get there first acting as a motivator. Although I would prefer that more people appreciated the real values of space science.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
Also most people didn't separate the term "space exploration" and "military spending"
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers. They are very cool, but does not dramatically improve lives on earth.
When you are discussing cutting the budget that will cause the deterioration of the health of quite a large chunk of the US population, spending money on pointless things like sending people to the Moon or Mars looks out of touch with the reality.
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
Also most people didn't separate the term "space exploration" and "military spending"
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers. They are very cool, but does not dramatically improve lives on earth.
Kestas
Staff member
I also believe we need a leap in propulsion technology to advance us more cheaply into space. It's not the amount of energy needed that is an issue, but the complexity of rocket propulsion that makes this a tricky endeavor at present time... not that I have any specific technology in mind.
This thought of mine comes from history, where man made great accomplishments reaching each Pole with great sacrifice, yet shortly afterward almost anyone can reach the Poles via aircraft with relative ease, thanks to technological advancements. Same with ocean depths and other accomplishments.
This thought of mine comes from history, where man made great accomplishments reaching each Pole with great sacrifice, yet shortly afterward almost anyone can reach the Poles via aircraft with relative ease, thanks to technological advancements. Same with ocean depths and other accomplishments.
Getting ejecta speed up is the only thing that will make space faring easier. Only thing I know that will do that is a fusion rocket.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
How ever are you going to decide where to allocate the 15 cents per day per capita that you would get from cutting NASA's budget to zero? You might want to look at the $4000 per year per capita spending nightmare that goes by the euphemism of "defense spending".
Where in the world do people get the idea that we are spending a lot of money on space? There is no factual basis for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. We've only ever allocated a pittance to it, even during its heyday in the 1960s.
Quote:
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers.
This is just so nonsensical that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. Military spending led directly to the useless STS program. Look at the history.
Another mundane weather satellite does little to advance our technology. Technical challenges implicit in programs like MER and MSL are what lead to serendipitous advances in our technology.
I don't generally trumpet the "nonstick frying pan" argument. It's a valid argument. But space science is, at its heart, a noble human endeavor. How do you put a price tag on the numinous?
But your take on the nonstick frying pan aspect is just so completely uninformed that I felt that I should say something.
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
How ever are you going to decide where to allocate the 15 cents per day per capita that you would get from cutting NASA's budget to zero? You might want to look at the $4000 per year per capita spending nightmare that goes by the euphemism of "defense spending".
Where in the world do people get the idea that we are spending a lot of money on space? There is no factual basis for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. We've only ever allocated a pittance to it, even during its heyday in the 1960s.
Quote:
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers.
This is just so nonsensical that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. Military spending led directly to the useless STS program. Look at the history.
Another mundane weather satellite does little to advance our technology. Technical challenges implicit in programs like MER and MSL are what lead to serendipitous advances in our technology.
I don't generally trumpet the "nonstick frying pan" argument. It's a valid argument. But space science is, at its heart, a noble human endeavor. How do you put a price tag on the numinous?
But your take on the nonstick frying pan aspect is just so completely uninformed that I felt that I should say something.
Quote:
Well, I think about it this way. Assuming we aren't wiped out by some cataclysm, eventually us humans will need to leave the earth to survive. In a few hundred million years the sun will be too hot, and earths oceans will start to boil away. We will need to leave the earth some day.
STOP watching Discovery channel, the nonsense they produce is just phenomenal.
We have been on this Earth roughly 300,000 years, I think we have bigger problems on our hands then our sun going supernova in FEW MILLION YEARS!!!.
I've seen other "quality" programming from Discovery channel. like what if all humans just disappeared, what if all ice caps melted, and all other gloom and doom fantasies, that previously were filmed in Hollywood, but now are presented on Discovery channel and they even have "specialists" commenting on these fictional "what ifs" just to make it credible.
Scare tactics at their best, even if fictional, but people will keep these images in mind next time they hear of a tornado, hurricane or an earth quake.
Well, I think about it this way. Assuming we aren't wiped out by some cataclysm, eventually us humans will need to leave the earth to survive. In a few hundred million years the sun will be too hot, and earths oceans will start to boil away. We will need to leave the earth some day.
STOP watching Discovery channel, the nonsense they produce is just phenomenal.
We have been on this Earth roughly 300,000 years, I think we have bigger problems on our hands then our sun going supernova in FEW MILLION YEARS!!!.
I've seen other "quality" programming from Discovery channel. like what if all humans just disappeared, what if all ice caps melted, and all other gloom and doom fantasies, that previously were filmed in Hollywood, but now are presented on Discovery channel and they even have "specialists" commenting on these fictional "what ifs" just to make it credible.
Scare tactics at their best, even if fictional, but people will keep these images in mind next time they hear of a tornado, hurricane or an earth quake.
Originally Posted By: Spockian1
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
How ever are you going to decide where to allocate the 15 cents per day per capita that you would get from cutting NASA's budget to zero? You might want to look at the $4000 per year per capita spending nightmare that goes by the euphemism of "defense spending".
Where in the world do people get the idea that we are spending a lot of money on space? There is no factual basis for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. We've only ever allocated a pittance to it, even during its heyday in the 1960s.
Quote:
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers.
This is just so nonsensical that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. Military spending led directly to the useless STS program. Look at the history.
Another mundane weather satellite does little to advance our technology. Technical challenges implicit in programs like MER and MSL are what lead to serendipitous advances in our technology.
I don't generally trumpet the "nonstick frying pan" argument. It's a valid argument. But space science is, at its heart, a noble human endeavor. How do you put a price tag on the numinous?
But your take on the nonstick frying pan aspect is just so completely uninformed that I felt that I should say something.
Maybe I didn't explain my position clearly. I suggest that we reduce the expense in both the space exploration and defense to minimal as both of these expense could be better use in producing more efficient technologies that can benefit everyone's life for centuries.
How about 4th and 5th gen nuclear technologies that can use the 90%+ material we call "waste" today to produce more energy and reduce the half life of our "waste" at the same time?
How about algae based fuel that solve coal power plant emission, waste water, and oil shortage at the same time?
How about sodium battery that is cheap to make, quick to recharge, and safe in accidents for automotive?
Instead we get stealth fighters and multi-use space shuttle that are more expensive and less efficient than traditional multi-stage rockets. I'm not saying that the designers and engineers didn't do a wonderful job, but we are having great landings in the wrong airports.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I agree, those who wanted this done should pool their own $ into a non profit to sponsor these activities.
How ever are you going to decide where to allocate the 15 cents per day per capita that you would get from cutting NASA's budget to zero? You might want to look at the $4000 per year per capita spending nightmare that goes by the euphemism of "defense spending".
Where in the world do people get the idea that we are spending a lot of money on space? There is no factual basis for it. Quite the contrary, in fact. We've only ever allocated a pittance to it, even during its heyday in the 1960s.
Quote:
Military spending leads to weather satellites and GPS; space exploration give us man on the moon and mars rovers.
This is just so nonsensical that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. Military spending led directly to the useless STS program. Look at the history.
Another mundane weather satellite does little to advance our technology. Technical challenges implicit in programs like MER and MSL are what lead to serendipitous advances in our technology.
I don't generally trumpet the "nonstick frying pan" argument. It's a valid argument. But space science is, at its heart, a noble human endeavor. How do you put a price tag on the numinous?
But your take on the nonstick frying pan aspect is just so completely uninformed that I felt that I should say something.
Maybe I didn't explain my position clearly. I suggest that we reduce the expense in both the space exploration and defense to minimal as both of these expense could be better use in producing more efficient technologies that can benefit everyone's life for centuries.
How about 4th and 5th gen nuclear technologies that can use the 90%+ material we call "waste" today to produce more energy and reduce the half life of our "waste" at the same time?
How about algae based fuel that solve coal power plant emission, waste water, and oil shortage at the same time?
How about sodium battery that is cheap to make, quick to recharge, and safe in accidents for automotive?
Instead we get stealth fighters and multi-use space shuttle that are more expensive and less efficient than traditional multi-stage rockets. I'm not saying that the designers and engineers didn't do a wonderful job, but we are having great landings in the wrong airports.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
STOP watching Discovery channel, the nonsense they produce is just phenomenal.
It's definitely variable. That's for sure. There are more reliable sources if one's primary goal isn't idle entertainment.
Quote:
We have been on this Earth roughly 300,000 years, I think we have bigger problems on our hands then our sun going supernova in FEW MILLION YEARS!!!.
"We", as in "life", probably 3.5+ billion years. We as in genus Homo, a couple of million. We, as in Homo sapiens sapiens, probably more like 100,000.
Our sun is not massive enough to go supernova. It might go nova. Well before that, after it runs out of hydrogen to fuse, it will begin to fuse helium and other elements, and will gradually expand into a Red Giant.
We used to think that it would expand past the orbit of the Earth. However, it appears likely not. So the good news is that the Earth will not be engulfed by the sun. The bad news is that it will still be burnt to a cinder.
All this is ~5 billion years in the future. Not "a few million".
After which, our sun will likely settle into old age as a white dwarf, harboring a core of degenerate matter. Not fusing. But still radiating left-over heat.
Quote:
...like what if all humans just disappeared...
We are distributed widely enough that actual extinction is unlikely. Human civilization is a house of cards, though. It wouldn't take much of a breeze to blow it down.
Quote:
...what if all ice caps melted
The northern cap is well on its way. This is something that *is* going to happen, at least in summer, and in the not too distant future. What I am saying here is not at all controversial.
Quote:
and all other gloom and doom fantasies, that previously were filmed in Hollywood, but now are presented on Discovery channel and they even have "specialists" commenting on these fictional "what ifs" just to make it credible.
Discovery channel is certainly science programming for the unwashed masses. But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work. No offence intended.
Quote:
Scare tactics at their best, even if fictional, but people will keep these images in mind next time they hear of a tornado, hurricane or an earth quake.
Human beings are embarrassingly bad at risk assessment. One of the most spectacular videos I have seen, and I imagine it originally aired on "Discovery", was about us being on the ray traversed by a Gamma Ray Burst originating with a star in our Milky Way galaxy. A GRB so close, and aimed in this direction, would strip our atmosphere in minutes to hours. We'd all die more or less instantly, with no warning at all.
Of course, the chances of it happening are astronomical, in comparison to, say, a strike by an NEO. We've currently done enough observation that we're pretty sure that a Yucatan scale strike is unlikely in the next few centuries. But we've done almost nothing to rule out the possibility of a Tunguska-scale strike over any time-scale.
STOP watching Discovery channel, the nonsense they produce is just phenomenal.
It's definitely variable. That's for sure. There are more reliable sources if one's primary goal isn't idle entertainment.
Quote:
We have been on this Earth roughly 300,000 years, I think we have bigger problems on our hands then our sun going supernova in FEW MILLION YEARS!!!.
"We", as in "life", probably 3.5+ billion years. We as in genus Homo, a couple of million. We, as in Homo sapiens sapiens, probably more like 100,000.
Our sun is not massive enough to go supernova. It might go nova. Well before that, after it runs out of hydrogen to fuse, it will begin to fuse helium and other elements, and will gradually expand into a Red Giant.
We used to think that it would expand past the orbit of the Earth. However, it appears likely not. So the good news is that the Earth will not be engulfed by the sun. The bad news is that it will still be burnt to a cinder.
All this is ~5 billion years in the future. Not "a few million".
After which, our sun will likely settle into old age as a white dwarf, harboring a core of degenerate matter. Not fusing. But still radiating left-over heat.
Quote:
...like what if all humans just disappeared...
We are distributed widely enough that actual extinction is unlikely. Human civilization is a house of cards, though. It wouldn't take much of a breeze to blow it down.
Quote:
...what if all ice caps melted
The northern cap is well on its way. This is something that *is* going to happen, at least in summer, and in the not too distant future. What I am saying here is not at all controversial.
Quote:
and all other gloom and doom fantasies, that previously were filmed in Hollywood, but now are presented on Discovery channel and they even have "specialists" commenting on these fictional "what ifs" just to make it credible.
Discovery channel is certainly science programming for the unwashed masses. But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work. No offence intended.
Quote:
Scare tactics at their best, even if fictional, but people will keep these images in mind next time they hear of a tornado, hurricane or an earth quake.
Human beings are embarrassingly bad at risk assessment. One of the most spectacular videos I have seen, and I imagine it originally aired on "Discovery", was about us being on the ray traversed by a Gamma Ray Burst originating with a star in our Milky Way galaxy. A GRB so close, and aimed in this direction, would strip our atmosphere in minutes to hours. We'd all die more or less instantly, with no warning at all.
Of course, the chances of it happening are astronomical, in comparison to, say, a strike by an NEO. We've currently done enough observation that we're pretty sure that a Yucatan scale strike is unlikely in the next few centuries. But we've done almost nothing to rule out the possibility of a Tunguska-scale strike over any time-scale.
Quote:
But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work.
You're right, I absolutely could use some brushing up, but I was not trying to show off my scientific knowledge.
Our lives COULD be wiped out in a blink of an eye (at least if you take how long the Earth exists), our whole existence is based on a very delicate balance and yes, anything upsetting that balance will affect us. The number of outcomes for us is infinite.
But yet, here we are and here is a thread from a young person asking “why aren't we looking for another home?” since this one will inevitably be destroyed.
This is the kind of effect I was talking about, the media only has to plant the seed, our imagination, especially in the younger minds that are affected more by constant media blasting will take care of the rest.
So who do you think will be easier to persuade to go and chase some planet exploration why our economy is crumbling?
But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work.
You're right, I absolutely could use some brushing up, but I was not trying to show off my scientific knowledge.
Our lives COULD be wiped out in a blink of an eye (at least if you take how long the Earth exists), our whole existence is based on a very delicate balance and yes, anything upsetting that balance will affect us. The number of outcomes for us is infinite.
But yet, here we are and here is a thread from a young person asking “why aren't we looking for another home?” since this one will inevitably be destroyed.
This is the kind of effect I was talking about, the media only has to plant the seed, our imagination, especially in the younger minds that are affected more by constant media blasting will take care of the rest.
So who do you think will be easier to persuade to go and chase some planet exploration why our economy is crumbling?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Quote:
But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work.
You're right, I absolutely could use some brushing up, but I was not trying to show off my scientific knowledge.
Our lives COULD be wiped out in a blink of an eye (at least if you take how long the Earth exists), our whole existence is based on a very delicate balance and yes, anything upsetting that balance will affect us. The number of outcomes for us is infinite.
But yet, here we are and here is a thread from a young person asking “why aren't we looking for another home?” since this one will inevitably be destroyed.
This is the kind of effect I was talking about, the media only has to plant the seed, our imagination, especially in the younger minds that are affected more by constant media blasting will take care of the rest.
So who do you think will be easier to persuade to go and chase some planet exploration why our economy is crumbling?
Good lord. I'm not saying it is IMMINENT. But it is a fact that eventually, SOMEDAY, be it ten years or ten million, earth will be no longer habitable.
And we shouldn't necessarily be "looking for a new home" for that reason. Conducting science experiments and launching any sort of spacecraft, carrying humans or robots, is easier from a low-gravity world such as the moon, or mars. They also contain a lot of material we could use to build colonies, and said spacecraft, and produce the fuel necessary.
There are plenty of practical reasons that colonizing to a limited degree the moon or mars would be a good idea. You may consider me "naive" and maybe I am, in regards to certain things (as most people are to a degree), but I am no idiot.
Quote:
But I get the impression that you could do with some science catch-up work.
You're right, I absolutely could use some brushing up, but I was not trying to show off my scientific knowledge.
Our lives COULD be wiped out in a blink of an eye (at least if you take how long the Earth exists), our whole existence is based on a very delicate balance and yes, anything upsetting that balance will affect us. The number of outcomes for us is infinite.
But yet, here we are and here is a thread from a young person asking “why aren't we looking for another home?” since this one will inevitably be destroyed.
This is the kind of effect I was talking about, the media only has to plant the seed, our imagination, especially in the younger minds that are affected more by constant media blasting will take care of the rest.
So who do you think will be easier to persuade to go and chase some planet exploration why our economy is crumbling?
Good lord. I'm not saying it is IMMINENT. But it is a fact that eventually, SOMEDAY, be it ten years or ten million, earth will be no longer habitable.
And we shouldn't necessarily be "looking for a new home" for that reason. Conducting science experiments and launching any sort of spacecraft, carrying humans or robots, is easier from a low-gravity world such as the moon, or mars. They also contain a lot of material we could use to build colonies, and said spacecraft, and produce the fuel necessary.
There are plenty of practical reasons that colonizing to a limited degree the moon or mars would be a good idea. You may consider me "naive" and maybe I am, in regards to certain things (as most people are to a degree), but I am no idiot.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Maybe I didn't explain my position clearly. I suggest that we reduce the expense in both the space exploration and defense to minimal...
By this, you mean to lump together the $54 per year per capita of NASA's budget with the $4000 per capita per year of the "defense" budget.
Quote:
...as both of these expense could be better use in producing more efficient technologies that can benefit everyone's life for centuries.
And here you are lumping together the practical benefits realized.
This is nonsensical. The question, if we are going to investigate the validity of the nonstick frying pan argument, should be whether we are getting a good return, in serendipitous spin-off tech, from the 15 cents per day that we have spent on space. And clearly, the answer is (if everyone will kindly turn off their iPods long enough to listen to this) "yes".
Quote:
How about 4th and 5th gen nuclear technologies that can use the 90%+ material we call "waste" today to produce more energy and reduce the half life of our "waste" at the same time?
I'm not at all sure what you mean by 4th and 5th generation nuclear technologies. I would support a greater investment in thorium-cycle work. Particularly LFTR technology. It's more than promising. But surely, reallocating some funds from the 50 year old effort to make nuclear fusion power practical, which has not yielded a single penny's worth of benefit back, would be a more logical step. Working thorium-cycle reactors have already been built. They're a done deal. With a fraction of the world fusion budget, we could have something workable in a reasonable time.
Quote:
How about algae based fuel that solve coal power plant emission, waste water, and oil shortage at the same time?
How about the fact that all that coal has great monetary value? Show me an historical example of where people have eschewed and ignored something with great monetary value simply because exploiting it was "not right". The only way to avoid burning all that coal is to make it valueless. I don't see that happening. Certainly, whatever algae-based pipe-dream you are talking about is not likely to do that. I think you've been reading to many glossies from tech start-ups, here.
Quote:
How about sodium battery that is cheap to make, quick to recharge, and safe in accidents for automotive?
No objections here. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing that is likely to come out of the space science effort. But instead of just the battery, we gain greater knowledge of what's going on at the heliopause, in addition.
Quote:
Instead we get stealth fighters and multi-use space shuttle that are more expensive and less efficient than traditional multi-stage rockets.
Indeed. Here, we are lumping stealth fighters and misguided manned space flight programs together. But in this case, they do belong to the same category of "stupid". I will be so glad to see the STS (shuttle) money hemorrhage finally stemmed.
Quote:
I'm not saying that the designers and engineers didn't do a wonderful job, but we are having great landings in the wrong airports.
Look. If you are looking to make things better for the ever-increasing number of human-beings on this planet you are fighting an unwinnable battle.
Every resource you throw at that problem is going to result in a license for people to have more children. That will require that ever more resources be diverted to that cause.
Mankind will, then, never have time to do anything noble, because it will have to be too focused upon facilitating people's urges to overly-procreate.
I offer no solution to that problem, although I have given the matter a great deal of thought over the years.
But saying that we should divert resources from noble efforts because we could facilitate more breeding that way doesn't make a lot of sense.
Maybe I didn't explain my position clearly. I suggest that we reduce the expense in both the space exploration and defense to minimal...
By this, you mean to lump together the $54 per year per capita of NASA's budget with the $4000 per capita per year of the "defense" budget.
Quote:
...as both of these expense could be better use in producing more efficient technologies that can benefit everyone's life for centuries.
And here you are lumping together the practical benefits realized.
This is nonsensical. The question, if we are going to investigate the validity of the nonstick frying pan argument, should be whether we are getting a good return, in serendipitous spin-off tech, from the 15 cents per day that we have spent on space. And clearly, the answer is (if everyone will kindly turn off their iPods long enough to listen to this) "yes".
Quote:
How about 4th and 5th gen nuclear technologies that can use the 90%+ material we call "waste" today to produce more energy and reduce the half life of our "waste" at the same time?
I'm not at all sure what you mean by 4th and 5th generation nuclear technologies. I would support a greater investment in thorium-cycle work. Particularly LFTR technology. It's more than promising. But surely, reallocating some funds from the 50 year old effort to make nuclear fusion power practical, which has not yielded a single penny's worth of benefit back, would be a more logical step. Working thorium-cycle reactors have already been built. They're a done deal. With a fraction of the world fusion budget, we could have something workable in a reasonable time.
Quote:
How about algae based fuel that solve coal power plant emission, waste water, and oil shortage at the same time?
How about the fact that all that coal has great monetary value? Show me an historical example of where people have eschewed and ignored something with great monetary value simply because exploiting it was "not right". The only way to avoid burning all that coal is to make it valueless. I don't see that happening. Certainly, whatever algae-based pipe-dream you are talking about is not likely to do that. I think you've been reading to many glossies from tech start-ups, here.
Quote:
How about sodium battery that is cheap to make, quick to recharge, and safe in accidents for automotive?
No objections here. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing that is likely to come out of the space science effort. But instead of just the battery, we gain greater knowledge of what's going on at the heliopause, in addition.
Quote:
Instead we get stealth fighters and multi-use space shuttle that are more expensive and less efficient than traditional multi-stage rockets.
Indeed. Here, we are lumping stealth fighters and misguided manned space flight programs together. But in this case, they do belong to the same category of "stupid". I will be so glad to see the STS (shuttle) money hemorrhage finally stemmed.
Quote:
I'm not saying that the designers and engineers didn't do a wonderful job, but we are having great landings in the wrong airports.
Look. If you are looking to make things better for the ever-increasing number of human-beings on this planet you are fighting an unwinnable battle.
Every resource you throw at that problem is going to result in a license for people to have more children. That will require that ever more resources be diverted to that cause.
Mankind will, then, never have time to do anything noble, because it will have to be too focused upon facilitating people's urges to overly-procreate.
I offer no solution to that problem, although I have given the matter a great deal of thought over the years.
But saying that we should divert resources from noble efforts because we could facilitate more breeding that way doesn't make a lot of sense.
This thread was good until someone started throwing around millions and billions of years like it's a fact. How does someone really verify such statements?
Space exploration is a necessity as much as any earth exploration is. I'm a big fan of NASA, but I'm admittedly biased. As a country and taxpayer, I see it extremely political and globally responsible. We've come too far to just pack up everything and turn it over to someone else.
How many arguments are we going to have on here about space exploration anyway? I could swear this is the 3rd or 4th one in the last year.
Space exploration is a necessity as much as any earth exploration is. I'm a big fan of NASA, but I'm admittedly biased. As a country and taxpayer, I see it extremely political and globally responsible. We've come too far to just pack up everything and turn it over to someone else.
How many arguments are we going to have on here about space exploration anyway? I could swear this is the 3rd or 4th one in the last year.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
This thread was good until someone started throwing around millions and billions of years like it's a fact. How does someone really verify such statements?
Are you asking for definitive proof, or are you questioning the decay of radioactive isotope decays that have a fixed half-life?
Plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80 million years. There is no Pu-244 to be found in rocks on Earth. Now you may calculate the minimum age of Earth. Similarly, the presence of Uranium-245 in terrestrial rocks indicates that Earth can't be older than some 14 billion years.
This thread was good until someone started throwing around millions and billions of years like it's a fact. How does someone really verify such statements?
Are you asking for definitive proof, or are you questioning the decay of radioactive isotope decays that have a fixed half-life?
Plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80 million years. There is no Pu-244 to be found in rocks on Earth. Now you may calculate the minimum age of Earth. Similarly, the presence of Uranium-245 in terrestrial rocks indicates that Earth can't be older than some 14 billion years.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
This thread was good until someone started throwing around millions and billions of years like it's a fact. How does someone really verify such statements?
How far away is the furthest star we can see and how long did it take the light to get here?
This thread was good until someone started throwing around millions and billions of years like it's a fact. How does someone really verify such statements?
How far away is the furthest star we can see and how long did it take the light to get here?
- Status
