We sent men to the moon for pete's sake! Now, it's crap. What it is doing these days is nothing short of boring.
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
This is 2007. I thought all those people that believe the footage was shot in a studio had given up.
I certainly hope so because all the naysayers biggest hands they had to deal out were shot down by many people; in other words, every single gripe the naysayers had, others explained it to prove the naysayers wrong.
We only went to the moon to beat the russians. Other than that there was no real desire for a huge space program so we'll never get back to that level again without a major emergency or goal. In fact I would say there is becoming less and less interest in the space program nowadays.
So far, I think everyone in this thread is saying there is less and less interest; my point was that eventually that interest will pick back up. There are still major advances to be made in space exploration, and that itself is a major goal. When Bill Clinton was running for president, a small part of his platform was for renewed interest in NASA (although he was against increased funding). So to say that America's sole interest in space exploration was to combat the Russians (granted it was a driving force), you would be mistaken.
Yeah and bush said he wanted to send people to mars. Unless something happens that get's people excited in space again it's not gonna happen..Just because you say interest will pick up is irelevant unless you tell us how that is gonna happen. As it is now, interest is waning and will continue to do so. That's why I believe we need to get space out of government and into the private sector where companies will do stuff for a fraction of the cost such as sending someone to the moon that will generate interest again.
Is it just me that finds sending people into space stupid? They send some guys into space to do what? Observer some other stuff in space and take some pictures of earth... They also want to send some guys to Mars, why? Because they want to see if there is tiny bacterias living there. Interesting...
But really, when all the various problems with our planet are looking to destroy the planet I think it's better to focus on doing something for our own planet rather then sending some people off to Mars to see if there is living bacterias there. And no, we can't send the whole earth's population into space, it's not even a plausible option.
I'm not trying to sound rude by saying this, so don't read it that way. But the way you're looking at it is really short sighted.
Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible.
Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past.
What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while.
For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though.
I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby.
Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem.
Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy.
So maybe the government should stop buiilding parks and zoos and anything else that is just a hobby and not focused on global warming? At least nasa has let to inventions and new technology's you probably use everyday.
Yeah and bush said he wanted to send people to mars. Unless something happens that get's people excited in space again it's not gonna happen..Just because you say interest will pick up is irelevant unless you tell us how that is gonna happen. As it is now, interest is waning and will continue to do so. That's why I believe we need to get space out of government and into the private sector where companies will do stuff for a fraction of the cost such as sending someone to the moon that will generate interest again.
Certainly the government isn't gonna do it.
And I'm sure he fully intended on trying to send someone to mars; up until 9/11 it was absolutely a realistic and worthwhile venture. After 9/11 no one could care less about space exploration, we had bigger things to deal with. Just like Vietnam, terrestrial issues always get in the way of the space program. However, as soon as we reach a lull in earthly issues, there's no reason that the space program wouldn't be just as pertinent as it was in 1969.
People aren't necessarily losing interest in the space program, there is just increased interest in other issues. When those issues are resolved, space will still be there.
OK, sure there have been some NASA people in the news lately. But come on.. our media sensationalises everything.
With that said... our scientists have realized frequent trips to space do not teach us much. We learn more from prolonged astronaughts on the international space station.
The problem is our human bodies can not last long in 0G gravity. So for moon or mars trips and bases to be possible we have to learn how our human bodies can adapt to that lack of gravity.
Another problem is that we cannot construct a vehicle large enough to transport humans to other planets here on earth. It is a vehicle we must assemble in orbit or on the moon. The reason is that a vehicle designed to break earths gravity is comepletely different than a vehicle designed to travel through vast ammous of space.
So basically our space program has hit a glass ceiling.
1. How do us humans survive long periods in space?
2. How do we construct vessels that can transport humans between the planets?
3. Do we have the technology to transport astronaughts far enough that their bodies do not give out on them before the mission completes?
With wars going on and the global warming scandle... the goverment money is going to other research. I wish the world was a better place. But unfortunately our government is only in office for so long and they have to lie cheat and steal while they are in office to get thier kickbacks. They have no interest in long term projects that they cannot scam.
The space is a deadly place, you have 0 gravity and you have lethal levels of radiation. Other planets ain't much better either, they lack gravity, poisonous gases, not strong enough magnetic fields to fend off cosmic radiation, heat, cold and no water. What could we hope to achieve by going there?
The argument that we get new technologies as a sideproduct is very much true, but if you consider the amount of money poured in, the price of few new gadgets goes through the roof. Billions of dollars to get new sunblock?
Unmanned ships are the only real solution to explore space in large scale anyway, so focus on that IMO. Much more cost effective.
The only reason NASA still exists is because the gov of USA wants to control the technology used in space, instead of letting private sector take charge. Private companies can send satellites to orbit much cheaper than NASA, but with the help of gov money NASA does it practicly free, under the market price. How could anyone compete in such a market? Matter of national security, that's the real ball and chain in today's space exploration.
We sent men to the moon for pete's sake! Now, it's crap. What it is doing these days is nothing short of boring.
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
Mmhmm, ya, and George Bush was responsible for 9/11. OoooOOOoooOOOooo Conspiracy!
The American Government denies of a place called "Area 51" lol. So what's beneath this must some very odd landscape, mabye an alien refuge. OOOOooooOOOO
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Another problem is that we cannot construct a vehicle large enough to transport humans to other planets here on earth. It is a vehicle we must assemble in orbit or on the moon. The reason is that a vehicle designed to break earths gravity is comepletely different than a vehicle designed to travel through vast ammous of space.
Have you seen the atomic bomb powered design?
They had to can it due to the nuclear non proliferation treaty which put a moritoriam on testing.
The key to it is making it large enough to withstand an atomic blast. Extra mass is a design requisite.
Exert from Wikipedia.
1959 report by General Atomics[1] explored the parameters of three different sizes of hypothetical Orion spacecraft:
"satellite"
Orion
"midrange"
Orion
"super"
Orion
Ship diameter
17-20 m
40 m
400 m
Ship mass
300 t
1-2000 t
8,000,000 t
Number of bombs
540
1080
1080
Individual bomb mass
0.22 t
0.37-0.75 t
3.00 t
The biggest design above is the "super" Orion design; at 8 million tons, it could easily be a city.[2] In interviews, the designers contemplated the large ship as a possible interstellar ark. This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials.
Exert form an Interview with Orion project leader George Dyson.
Project Orion, while wonderfully inventive, seems in retrospect to have been a frightening undertaking raising questions about its environmental impact if attempted and what impact it would have had on the Cold War. Do you yourself think the project should have been completed?
At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much. It's impossible to say what the impact on the cold war would have been. In my view, what really won the cold war, in the end, was not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but the Interstate Highway System. Had we really gone full-speed and large scale into deep space, the cold war would have ended sooner, I suspect.
We sent men to the moon for pete's sake! Now, it's crap. What it is doing these days is nothing short of boring.
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
Mmhmm, ya, and George Bush was responsible for 9/11. OoooOOOoooOOOooo Conspiracy!
The American Government denies of a place called "Area 51" lol. So what's beneath this must some very odd landscape, mabye an alien refuge. OOOOooooOOOO
Dude... Area 51... DOESN'T exist. All of those pictures are photoshopeed which is extremely easy to do...
1. It would not take 200 years to get people on mars. NASA actually came up with an 8 year plan, with ship design and everything. If the management hadn't canned it, we'd have people on mars NOW, not 2207.
2. To Godliest, that is the downfall of our society. We don't care about things that don't have an immediate effect. If we aren't forced to do something, as you say, we'll never get off our asses and do it, no matter the benefit to our society. Even then, there are people who don't even believe it's happening, and refuse to focus on the problem.
3. If we didn't go to the moon, whouldn't the russians have shown us up by now? Besides, there hasn't been a single argument on this subject that hasn't been debunked.
How many times have we heard the mantra: Why are we spending billions of dollars up there in space when we have pressing problems down here on Earth? Lets re-ask the question in an illuminating way: What is the total cost in taxes of all spaceborne telescopes, planetary probes, the rovers on Mars, the space station and shuttle, telescopes yet to orbit and missions yet to fly? Answer: less than 1% on the tax dollar7/10ths of a penny, to be exact. [ ] So, with 99 out of 100 cents going to fund the rest of our nations priorities, the space program is not now (nor has it ever really been) in anybodys way.
The short version: space exploration costs us very little. Need I remind you that we are basically setting fire to $11,000,000 per hour in Iraq? When I talk on this topic, I make an analogy: when your disk drive is full, do you go through and take hours to delete thousands of small text files, or do you delete that one big 3 Gb video file you never watch? NASA is a text file on the hard drive of the government.
I pretty much knew all that. You brought up how much you spend on war. I didn't mention this, but I have the same opinion as on the space program here. Not exactly the same! But I think it's ridiculous how much money USA spend on war instead of things that actually do something. For me, the space program is by far more important than war.
Don't start discussing war now thanks. Regarding your little analogy I could only say that I do both. Delete the 3 Gb file and take care of the smaller text files, many small things tend to become very big after a while.
If the money you gain back from the space program indeed pays back in new science I can say that you keep at the same line. I noticed that he does mention how much money is spent on warfare ($11,000,000) but I don't see any exact number on how much is spent on the space program.
As I mentioned before many small things build up to one huge thing. When he says that very little money goes to the space program (less than 1% on the tax dollar7/10ths of a penny) we should keep in mind that this seemingly small sum may in reality be huge. There is no way of telling because no facts are really given here.
Originally posted by Rreka'al This thread scares me... 1. It would not take 200 years to get people on mars. NASA actually came up with an 8 year plan, with ship design and everything. If the management hadn't canned it, we'd have people on mars NOW, not 2207. 2. To Godliest, that is the downfall of our society. We don't care about things that don't have an immediate effect. If we aren't forced to do something, as you say, we'll never get off our asses and do it, no matter the benefit to our society. Even then, there are people who don't even believe it's happening, and refuse to focus on the problem. 3. If we didn't go to the moon, whouldn't the russians have shown us up by now? Besides, there hasn't been a single argument on this subject that hasn't been debunked.
I don't know if it's me that is the example of the downfall or the rest of the society. No matter what I wouldn't say that spending money on the global warming will pay of immediately. I agree that we usually don't do things that have immediate effects, and that has caused some serious problems. When I say that we turn our efforts to the global warming (and dimming! don't forget that problem) I think that I'm looking more into the future than those who want to keep on paying for the space program.
The space program pays of pretty much in no time. You can see stuff happening thanks to it with almost no waiting. The Global warming and dimming on the other, we will probably never even see anything happen, because we didn't see it coming in the first place. I'm trying to look far into the future and see what we will benefit most from.
1. It would not take 200 years to get people on mars. NASA actually came up with an 8 year plan, with ship design and everything. If the management hadn't canned it, we'd have people on mars NOW, not 2207.
2. To Godliest, that is the downfall of our society. We don't care about things that don't have an immediate effect. If we aren't forced to do something, as you say, we'll never get off our asses and do it, no matter the benefit to our society. Even then, there are people who don't even believe it's happening, and refuse to focus on the problem.
3. If we didn't go to the moon, whouldn't the russians have shown us up by now? Besides, there hasn't been a single argument on this subject that hasn't been debunked.
I don't know if it's me that is the example of the downfall or the rest of the society. No matter what I wouldn't say that spending money on the global warming will pay of immediately. I agree that we usually don't do things that have immediate effects, and that has caused some serious problems. When I say that we turn our efforts to the global warming (and dimming! don't forget that problem) I think that I'm looking more into the future than those who want to keep on paying for the space program.
The space program pays of pretty much in no time. You can see stuff happening thanks to it with almost no waiting. The Global warming and dimming on the other, we will probably never even see anything happen, because we didn't see it coming in the first place. I'm trying to look far into the future and see what we will benefit most from.
The space program, in the long long run, is more important than this planet. We WILL mine everything eventually, the sun WILL turn into a red giant, and that's the end of the planet. If we don't nuke each other to death by this point, trying to stop global warming will be hard when the planet is part of the sun. But if we have moved to other systems, the race will outlast. Don't say space exploration is all about instant gratification. The tech we invent while expanding in the field also change the way things work.
But I think we both agree, [people aren't doing enough with things that actually matter.
Is it just me that finds sending people into space stupid? They send some guys into space to do what? Observer some other stuff in space and take some pictures of earth... They also want to send some guys to Mars, why? Because they want to see if there is tiny bacterias living there. Interesting...
But really, when all the various problems with our planet are looking to destroy the planet I think it's better to focus on doing something for our own planet rather then sending some people off to Mars to see if there is living bacterias there. And no, we can't send the whole earth's population into space, it's not even a plausible option.
I'm not trying to sound rude by saying this, so don't read it that way. But the way you're looking at it is really short sighted.
Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible.
Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past.
What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while.
For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though.
I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby.
Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem.
Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy.
Let me point out the irony of your statement there.
You say we should focus on something like our environment instead of space travel. But, consider this. If we were to go to Mars and start doing experiments there, we would inadvertently learn more about our own environment. Seeing and learning what happened on the surface of other planets could be a way of figuring out what could happen to our own.
The research done in space research created our very world of today.
How easy do you think maintaining the internet would be without sattelites? Do you think you would have LCD screens or LED lights? There are literally thousands (about 30K actually) of little things (chips, diodes, computer programs, engines, safety regulations, research on the human body, radar equipment, ..........) that have improved our lives. Dental braces, recharchable batteries, the cordless drill, reverse cycle air conditioning, cardiac monitoring equipment, new ultra-strong materials (of which fake bones are made), renewable fuels, ....... Not to mention the simple fact that we rely on sattelites for monitoring our very planet. Thicknesss of the ice caps, mogration of species, ozone layer state, dust in the atmosphere, .......... The very concept of going into space makes us think about completely new problems and make us think of solutions for problems we didn't even consider solvable. Especially things like minutarization were previously unfathomed.
And what do you think they do in that ISS? Sit around and play 3D Chess? It's not Star Trek, you know. They do medical experments, check the influence of the sun on our amosphere, the influence of the sun on our electrical equipment, observe the growth of cancer cells, test vaccines, ......
And then there's the fact that we need to prepare. The world isn't a safe place. The next world shattering meteorite is long overdue. And the next one to strike with a hige probability arrives in 2880. In case you were wondering, NEO's aren't rare. They're all around.
Then there's our own stupidities that could fuck up this planet. Ice Ages, global warming, water shortage, ......
If we want to grow and expand and SURVIVE then we as a species need to get the fuck out of here asap. We aren't save over here. It's amazing we actually had the time to develop and build a civilization.
OK, sure there have been some NASA people in the news lately. But come on.. our media sensationalises everything. With that said... our scientists have realized frequent trips to space do not teach us much. We learn more from prolonged astronaughts on the international space station. The problem is our human bodies can not last long in 0G gravity. So for moon or mars trips and bases to be possible we have to learn how our human bodies can adapt to that lack of gravity. Another problem is that we cannot construct a vehicle large enough to transport humans to other planets here on earth. It is a vehicle we must assemble in orbit or on the moon. The reason is that a vehicle designed to break earths gravity is comepletely different than a vehicle designed to travel through vast ammous of space. So basically our space program has hit a glass ceiling. 1. How do us humans survive long periods in space? 2. How do we construct vessels that can transport humans between the planets? 3. Do we have the technology to transport astronaughts far enough that their bodies do not give out on them before the mission completes?
With wars going on and the global warming scandle... the goverment money is going to other research. I wish the world was a better place. But unfortunately our government is only in office for so long and they have to lie cheat and steal while they are in office to get thier kickbacks. They have no interest in long term projects that they cannot scam.
I saw this movie a while back where they used centrifugal force to create gravity on long trips.
I sort of agree with you Gnomexxx. I think you are exagerating the hypothetical technical advances we might have made if NASA had, uh, I guess you're saying that they should have concentrated more on manned missions. But generally I agree that NASA is wasting a lot of time and money. My big gripe is all money they spend collecting data on things that are currently far beyond our reach. Sure they provide interesting data. But what the hell good is it ever going to do anyone to know, for example, the composition of Titans atmosphere if people never go there? I agree that NASA should have built a permanent moon base. Everything they do should be about people getting into space and living there. Otherwise all the data they collect, however interesting it might be, is just useless, abstract knowledge for the most part. At the moment I would be inclined to say that the majority of NASAs funding should go to research on new propulsion systems to make space travel more feasable. Maybe ressurrect the Orion project if nothing else (of course there would be political problems with that). And some of the projects they have planned, I don't know. They can find all the extra-solar planets they want but what good does it do us if we can't even get people to Mars?
I can understand why we want to figure out the composition of Titan's atmosphere. We want to figure it out simply so we can have that knowledge. Knowledge is one of the biggest motivational forces of man. What's wrong with saying we're going there to find out what the heck our solar system is like? I don't see anything wrong with that. When I watch shows like Star Trek, I totally understand why they go from planet to planet and system to system. It's to see what is there.
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
I sort of agree with you Gnomexxx. I think you are exagerating the hypothetical technical advances we might have made if NASA had, uh, I guess you're saying that they should have concentrated more on manned missions. But generally I agree that NASA is wasting a lot of time and money. My big gripe is all money they spend collecting data on things that are currently far beyond our reach. Sure they provide interesting data. But what the hell good is it ever going to do anyone to know, for example, the composition of Titans atmosphere if people never go there? I agree that NASA should have built a permanent moon base. Everything they do should be about people getting into space and living there. Otherwise all the data they collect, however interesting it might be, is just useless, abstract knowledge for the most part. At the moment I would be inclined to say that the majority of NASAs funding should go to research on new propulsion systems to make space travel more feasable. Maybe ressurrect the Orion project if nothing else (of course there would be political problems with that). And some of the projects they have planned, I don't know. They can find all the extra-solar planets they want but what good does it do us if we can't even get people to Mars?
I can understand why we want to figure out the composition of Titan's atmosphere. We want to figure it out simply so we can have that knowledge. Knowledge is one of the biggest motivational forces of man. What's wrong with saying we're going there to find out what the heck our solar system is like? I don't see anything wrong with that. When I watch shows like Star Trek, I totally understand why they go from planet to planet and system to system. It's to see what is there.
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
When you want to jump of a ledge, don't you want to know how high it is?
I sort of agree with you Gnomexxx. I think you are exagerating the hypothetical technical advances we might have made if NASA had, uh, I guess you're saying that they should have concentrated more on manned missions. But generally I agree that NASA is wasting a lot of time and money. My big gripe is all money they spend collecting data on things that are currently far beyond our reach. Sure they provide interesting data. But what the hell good is it ever going to do anyone to know, for example, the composition of Titans atmosphere if people never go there? I agree that NASA should have built a permanent moon base. Everything they do should be about people getting into space and living there. Otherwise all the data they collect, however interesting it might be, is just useless, abstract knowledge for the most part. At the moment I would be inclined to say that the majority of NASAs funding should go to research on new propulsion systems to make space travel more feasable. Maybe ressurrect the Orion project if nothing else (of course there would be political problems with that). And some of the projects they have planned, I don't know. They can find all the extra-solar planets they want but what good does it do us if we can't even get people to Mars?
I can understand why we want to figure out the composition of Titan's atmosphere. We want to figure it out simply so we can have that knowledge. Knowledge is one of the biggest motivational forces of man. What's wrong with saying we're going there to find out what the heck our solar system is like? I don't see anything wrong with that. When I watch shows like Star Trek, I totally understand why they go from planet to planet and system to system. It's to see what is there.
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
Huh?
I don't understand what you're saying. I never said I was happy with the direction NASA is taking. They're not doing enough. That's what I said in my first post. How does the post you just responded to contradict my former statement at all?
I don't know, for some reason I think that learning how to survive is more important that fighting for oil in Iraq. (Which anyone with half a brain can see it for)
The reason the space program cannot, and should not be in the hands of the private sector is because understanding and controliing technology in outer space is critical to national defense.
Another problem is that we cannot construct a vehicle large enough to transport humans to other planets here on earth. It is a vehicle we must assemble in orbit or on the moon. The reason is that a vehicle designed to break earths gravity is comepletely different than a vehicle designed to travel through vast ammous of space.
Have you seen the atomic bomb powered design?
They had to can it due to the nuclear non proliferation treaty which put a moritoriam on testing.
The key to it is making it large enough to withstand an atomic blast. Extra mass is a design requisite.
Exert from Wikipedia.
1959 report by General Atomics[1] explored the parameters of three different sizes of hypothetical Orion spacecraft:
"satellite"
Orion
"midrange"
Orion
"super"
Orion
Ship diameter
17-20 m
40 m
400 m
Ship mass
300 t
1-2000 t
8,000,000 t
Number of bombs
540
1080
1080
Individual bomb mass
0.22 t
0.37-0.75 t
3.00 t
The biggest design above is the "super" Orion design; at 8 million tons, it could easily be a city.[2] In interviews, the designers contemplated the large ship as a possible interstellar ark. This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials.
Exert form an Interview with Orion project leader George Dyson.
Project Orion, while wonderfully inventive, seems in retrospect to have been a frightening undertaking raising questions about its environmental impact if attempted and what impact it would have had on the Cold War. Do you yourself think the project should have been completed?
At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much. It's impossible to say what the impact on the cold war would have been. In my view, what really won the cold war, in the end, was not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but the Interstate Highway System. Had we really gone full-speed and large scale into deep space, the cold war would have ended sooner, I suspect.
Funny as hell, that the ;argest ship powered by nuclear bombs that can be the size of an entire city is written in arabic.
Oh, those silly terrorists
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
NASA is still the exact same org that has been here since the 50s and 60s. The problem is the government running it. NASA pumps out tons of great ideas and is just as passionate about exploration is ever, but the government has cut our funding by leaps and bounds. Another reason for NASA's seeming downfall is the public and the news media. If one more vehicle turns into a big fire cracker, NASA is done with. That's not how it should be. I mean, astronauts sign up knowing they're risking their lives. They didn't sign up expecting to sit around and be perfectly safe.
Look at the old times of exploration, it wasn't safe. If it was safe, everyone would be doing it!
As for the exploration only thing, what else is NASA supposed to do? There's plenty of private firms doing plenty of research. NASA was founded to be an agency for exploration, not for inventing the next best bedding material. On the same topic of bedding material, all "invented by NASA" products are biproducts of researching technologies for exploration. I would type a lot more but for some reason my internet explorer keeps locking up . Guess where I work... lol the irony.
Originally posted by gnomexxx Originally posted by Godliest
Originally posted by gnomexxx
Originally posted by Godliest
Is it just me that finds sending people into space stupid? They send some guys into space to do what? Observer some other stuff in space and take some pictures of earth... They also want to send some guys to Mars, why? Because they want to see if there is tiny bacterias living there. Interesting... But really, when all the various problems with our planet are looking to destroy the planet I think it's better to focus on doing something for our own planet rather then sending some people off to Mars to see if there is living bacterias there. And no, we can't send the whole earth's population into space, it's not even a plausible option.
I'm not trying to sound rude by saying this, so don't read it that way. But the way you're looking at it is really short sighted. Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible. Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past. What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while. For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though. I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby. Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem. Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy. Let me point out the irony of your statement there. You say we should focus on something like our environment instead of space travel. But, consider this. If we were to go to Mars and start doing experiments there, we would inadvertently learn more about our own environment. Seeing and learning what happened on the surface of other planets could be a way of figuring out what could happen to our own.
However, Mars and Earth got different atmospheres and well a few thing are alike, but mostly they are different. It's not as easy as we can just go off to Mars and destroy the planet in an attempt to see what we did wrong. Consider that we already know the problem (or at least the most of us can agree on that we know the problem, don't start debating that thanks?).
Consider the irony in your post. It's been said by NASA that we could get to Mars about year 2020! By then it's to late. And even if we could get to Mars in a shorter future we would need to establish a base and much more before we could actually start experimenting. By that time solving the problems we have at our own planet will require even more determination to fix.
The space program, in the long long run, is more important than this planet. We WILL mine everything eventually, the sun WILL turn into a red giant, and that's the end of the planet. If we don't nuke each other to death by this point, trying to stop global warming will be hard when the planet is part of the sun. But if we have moved to other systems, the race will outlast. Don't say space exploration is all about instant gratification. The tech we invent while expanding in the field also change the way things work.
You look a bit too far into the future. You can't look all too far into the future, because then you could as well say it all doesn't matter, because some day the sun will stop burning and we will die here on our cold planet. The space program yields successes that are pretty instant. In the long run the stuff you get from the space program is instant and easy to see, it will of course keep giving stuff back and by time this stuff would become better and better, right? So we could say it's still a instant gratification, but when we look far into the future we can see that the gratification has became better.
The space program will indeed, in the long run, be more important than this planet. But by the time it will Global Warming will have managed to flood the whole planet and there are only few surviving humans left. If we get on the right path with global warming (and dimming) the human race will (probably) last long enough for the space program to make it possible to move the entire population.
Ok, maybe that's an unfair jab at you. But look, the thing you are failing to understand is that NASA can't do everything. Limited budget, man, that's what you need to keep in mind. You seem to think that the director of NASA can snap his fingers and suddenly have unlimited funding. You also seem to have the impression that moon bases can appear overnight as the product of wishfull thinking. Well sorry, it doesn't work that way.
The assumption you seem to be making is that NASA could do anything and everything that anyone could imagine but that they are holding back for no real reason. What I'm trying to tell you is that they can't do everything. Choices have to be made. What I originally thought this thread was about was whether or not NASA has been making the correct choices in which projects to fund. Unfortunately I have discovered that you are just upset that we don't have Star Trek ships yet and were complaining because obviously NASA could build them tommorrow if they wanted to but they refuse to build them for no apparent reason.
Comments
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
This is 2007. I thought all those people that believe the footage was shot in a studio had given up.
I certainly hope so because all the naysayers biggest hands they had to deal out were shot down by many people; in other words, every single gripe the naysayers had, others explained it to prove the naysayers wrong.
Plus, if the astronauts did fake it, would they do this?
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
So far, I think everyone in this thread is saying there is less and less interest; my point was that eventually that interest will pick back up. There are still major advances to be made in space exploration, and that itself is a major goal. When Bill Clinton was running for president, a small part of his platform was for renewed interest in NASA (although he was against increased funding). So to say that America's sole interest in space exploration was to combat the Russians (granted it was a driving force), you would be mistaken.
Yeah and bush said he wanted to send people to mars. Unless something happens that get's people excited in space again it's not gonna happen..Just because you say interest will pick up is irelevant unless you tell us how that is gonna happen. As it is now, interest is waning and will continue to do so. That's why I believe we need to get space out of government and into the private sector where companies will do stuff for a fraction of the cost such as sending someone to the moon that will generate interest again.Certainly the government isn't gonna do it.
Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible.
Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past.
What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while.
For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though.
I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby.
Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem.
Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy.
So maybe the government should stop buiilding parks and zoos and anything else that is just a hobby and not focused on global warming? At least nasa has let to inventions and new technology's you probably use everyday.
And I'm sure he fully intended on trying to send someone to mars; up until 9/11 it was absolutely a realistic and worthwhile venture. After 9/11 no one could care less about space exploration, we had bigger things to deal with. Just like Vietnam, terrestrial issues always get in the way of the space program. However, as soon as we reach a lull in earthly issues, there's no reason that the space program wouldn't be just as pertinent as it was in 1969.
People aren't necessarily losing interest in the space program, there is just increased interest in other issues. When those issues are resolved, space will still be there.
OK, sure there have been some NASA people in the news lately. But come on.. our media sensationalises everything.
With that said... our scientists have realized frequent trips to space do not teach us much. We learn more from prolonged astronaughts on the international space station.
The problem is our human bodies can not last long in 0G gravity. So for moon or mars trips and bases to be possible we have to learn how our human bodies can adapt to that lack of gravity.
Another problem is that we cannot construct a vehicle large enough to transport humans to other planets here on earth. It is a vehicle we must assemble in orbit or on the moon. The reason is that a vehicle designed to break earths gravity is comepletely different than a vehicle designed to travel through vast ammous of space.
So basically our space program has hit a glass ceiling.
1. How do us humans survive long periods in space?
2. How do we construct vessels that can transport humans between the planets?
3. Do we have the technology to transport astronaughts far enough that their bodies do not give out on them before the mission completes?
With wars going on and the global warming scandle... the goverment money is going to other research. I wish the world was a better place. But unfortunately our government is only in office for so long and they have to lie cheat and steal while they are in office to get thier kickbacks. They have no interest in long term projects that they cannot scam.
The space is a deadly place, you have 0 gravity and you have lethal levels of radiation. Other planets ain't much better either, they lack gravity, poisonous gases, not strong enough magnetic fields to fend off cosmic radiation, heat, cold and no water. What could we hope to achieve by going there?
The argument that we get new technologies as a sideproduct is very much true, but if you consider the amount of money poured in, the price of few new gadgets goes through the roof. Billions of dollars to get new sunblock?
Unmanned ships are the only real solution to explore space in large scale anyway, so focus on that IMO. Much more cost effective.
The only reason NASA still exists is because the gov of USA wants to control the technology used in space, instead of letting private sector take charge. Private companies can send satellites to orbit much cheaper than NASA, but with the help of gov money NASA does it practicly free, under the market price. How could anyone compete in such a market? Matter of national security, that's the real ball and chain in today's space exploration.
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
Mmhmm, ya, and George Bush was responsible for 9/11. OoooOOOoooOOOooo Conspiracy!
The American Government denies of a place called "Area 51" lol. So what's beneath this must some very odd landscape, mabye an alien refuge. OOOOooooOOOO
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
Have you seen the atomic bomb powered design?
They had to can it due to the nuclear non proliferation treaty which put a moritoriam on testing.
The key to it is making it large enough to withstand an atomic blast. Extra mass is a design requisite.
Exert from Wikipedia.
1959 report by General Atomics[1] explored the parameters of three different sizes of hypothetical Orion spacecraft:
Orion
Orion
Orion
The biggest design above is the "super" Orion design; at 8 million tons, it could easily be a city.[2] In interviews, the designers contemplated the large ship as a possible interstellar ark. This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials.
Exert form an Interview with Orion project leader George Dyson.
Project Orion, while wonderfully inventive, seems in retrospect to have been a frightening undertaking raising questions about its environmental impact if attempted and what impact it would have had on the Cold War. Do you yourself think the project should have been completed?
At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much. It's impossible to say what the impact on the cold war would have been. In my view, what really won the cold war, in the end, was not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but the Interstate Highway System. Had we really gone full-speed and large scale into deep space, the cold war would have ended sooner, I suspect.
I'm sorry but I find that too far-fetched, the only way I would believe that Neil Armstrong and co. landed on the moon on the 21st of July 1969 is close-up shots of the moon involving footprints and the USA flag.
Mmhmm, ya, and George Bush was responsible for 9/11. OoooOOOoooOOOooo Conspiracy!
The American Government denies of a place called "Area 51" lol. So what's beneath this must some very odd landscape, mabye an alien refuge. OOOOooooOOOO
Dude... Area 51... DOESN'T exist. All of those pictures are photoshopeed which is extremely easy to do...
This thread scares me...
1. It would not take 200 years to get people on mars. NASA actually came up with an 8 year plan, with ship design and everything. If the management hadn't canned it, we'd have people on mars NOW, not 2207.
2. To Godliest, that is the downfall of our society. We don't care about things that don't have an immediate effect. If we aren't forced to do something, as you say, we'll never get off our asses and do it, no matter the benefit to our society. Even then, there are people who don't even believe it's happening, and refuse to focus on the problem.
3. If we didn't go to the moon, whouldn't the russians have shown us up by now? Besides, there hasn't been a single argument on this subject that hasn't been debunked.
The short version: space exploration costs us very little. Need I remind you that we are basically setting fire to $11,000,000 per hour in Iraq? When I talk on this topic, I make an analogy: when your disk drive is full, do you go through and take hours to delete thousands of small text files, or do you delete that one big 3 Gb video file you never watch? NASA is a text file on the hard drive of the government.
Original source.
Original Source Of Article.
I suggest you read both of them.
Have a great time changing your world view.[/b][/quote]
I pretty much knew all that. You brought up how much you spend on war. I didn't mention this, but I have the same opinion as on the space program here. Not exactly the same! But I think it's ridiculous how much money USA spend on war instead of things that actually do something. For me, the space program is by far more important than war.
Don't start discussing war now thanks. Regarding your little analogy I could only say that I do both. Delete the 3 Gb file and take care of the smaller text files, many small things tend to become very big after a while.
If the money you gain back from the space program indeed pays back in new science I can say that you keep at the same line. I noticed that he does mention how much money is spent on warfare ($11,000,000) but I don't see any exact number on how much is spent on the space program.
As I mentioned before many small things build up to one huge thing. When he says that very little money goes to the space program (less than 1% on the tax dollar7/10ths of a penny) we should keep in mind that this seemingly small sum may in reality be huge. There is no way of telling because no facts are really given here.
I don't know if it's me that is the example of the downfall or the rest of the society. No matter what I wouldn't say that spending money on the global warming will pay of immediately. I agree that we usually don't do things that have immediate effects, and that has caused some serious problems. When I say that we turn our efforts to the global warming (and dimming! don't forget that problem) I think that I'm looking more into the future than those who want to keep on paying for the space program.
The space program pays of pretty much in no time. You can see stuff happening thanks to it with almost no waiting. The Global warming and dimming on the other, we will probably never even see anything happen, because we didn't see it coming in the first place. I'm trying to look far into the future and see what we will benefit most from.
I don't know if it's me that is the example of the downfall or the rest of the society. No matter what I wouldn't say that spending money on the global warming will pay of immediately. I agree that we usually don't do things that have immediate effects, and that has caused some serious problems. When I say that we turn our efforts to the global warming (and dimming! don't forget that problem) I think that I'm looking more into the future than those who want to keep on paying for the space program.
The space program pays of pretty much in no time. You can see stuff happening thanks to it with almost no waiting. The Global warming and dimming on the other, we will probably never even see anything happen, because we didn't see it coming in the first place. I'm trying to look far into the future and see what we will benefit most from.
The space program, in the long long run, is more important than this planet. We WILL mine everything eventually, the sun WILL turn into a red giant, and that's the end of the planet. If we don't nuke each other to death by this point, trying to stop global warming will be hard when the planet is part of the sun. But if we have moved to other systems, the race will outlast. Don't say space exploration is all about instant gratification. The tech we invent while expanding in the field also change the way things work.But I think we both agree, [people aren't doing enough with things that actually matter.
Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible.
Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past.
What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while.
For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though.
I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby.
Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem.
Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy.
Let me point out the irony of your statement there.You say we should focus on something like our environment instead of space travel. But, consider this. If we were to go to Mars and start doing experiments there, we would inadvertently learn more about our own environment. Seeing and learning what happened on the surface of other planets could be a way of figuring out what could happen to our own.
===============================
Godliest.
Next time, READ THE LINKS. Thank you.
The research done in space research created our very world of today.
How easy do you think maintaining the internet would be without sattelites? Do you think you would have LCD screens or LED lights? There are literally thousands (about 30K actually) of little things (chips, diodes, computer programs, engines, safety regulations, research on the human body, radar equipment, ..........) that have improved our lives. Dental braces, recharchable batteries, the cordless drill, reverse cycle air conditioning, cardiac monitoring equipment, new ultra-strong materials (of which fake bones are made), renewable fuels, ....... Not to mention the simple fact that we rely on sattelites for monitoring our very planet. Thicknesss of the ice caps, mogration of species, ozone layer state, dust in the atmosphere, .......... The very concept of going into space makes us think about completely new problems and make us think of solutions for problems we didn't even consider solvable. Especially things like minutarization were previously unfathomed.
And what do you think they do in that ISS? Sit around and play 3D Chess? It's not Star Trek, you know. They do medical experments, check the influence of the sun on our amosphere, the influence of the sun on our electrical equipment, observe the growth of cancer cells, test vaccines, ......
Here's some stuff you might want to read:
http://www.science.edu.sg/ssc/detailed.jsp?artid=5556&type=6&root=6&parent=6&cat=71
http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/02/space.medical/
http://www.allsands.com/Science/spaceexploratio_vfv_gn.htm
http://www.stars4space.org/Benefits.html
And then there's the fact that we need to prepare. The world isn't a safe place. The next world shattering meteorite is long overdue. And the next one to strike with a hige probability arrives in 2880. In case you were wondering, NEO's aren't rare. They're all around.
Then there's our own stupidities that could fuck up this planet. Ice Ages, global warming, water shortage, ......
If we want to grow and expand and SURVIVE then we as a species need to get the fuck out of here asap. We aren't save over here. It's amazing we actually had the time to develop and build a civilization.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I saw this movie a while back where they used centrifugal force to create gravity on long trips.
===============================
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
When you want to jump of a ledge, don't you want to know how high it is?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
You might argue that finding out what Titan's atmosphere is like possesses no utility for us, but how do you know that for certain without first finding out what is there? Someday, with an advancement unforeseen by us now, we may find utility in the atmosphere of Titan. Knowing what is there ahead of time could provide us with a resource we could use.
If you are happy with the direction Nasa has taken then what were you bitching about in your first post? Your first post and this reply seem to be contradictory to each other.
But let me make something clear: I wasn't saying that there is no value in collecting data which is of no immediate use to us. What I was getting at is that given a limited budget, what should Nasa use their budget for FIRST. What should be the priority?
I'm just as fascinated by Saturn's rings and the possibility of liquid water under Europa's ice as the next guy. But if I had to choose between spending more money to gain an increase in esoteric knowledge or spending the same money to actually DO something in space rather than just looking at it, then I would choose the later.
What I was saying was that we can send all the probes that we want out to peer into the nooks and crannies of the solar system but most of what we learn will be useless to us if we never have a serious human prescense in space. I personally believe that we should focus first on better ways to get there and live there and worry about the esoteric knowledge later. Given a limited budget choices do have to be made. Something has to be sacrificed.
Huh?I don't understand what you're saying. I never said I was happy with the direction NASA is taking. They're not doing enough. That's what I said in my first post. How does the post you just responded to contradict my former statement at all?
===============================
I don't know, for some reason I think that learning how to survive is more important that fighting for oil in Iraq. (Which anyone with half a brain can see it for)
Maybe it's just me though...
The reason the space program cannot, and should not be in the hands of the private sector is because understanding and controliing technology in outer space is critical to national defense.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Have you seen the atomic bomb powered design?
They had to can it due to the nuclear non proliferation treaty which put a moritoriam on testing.
The key to it is making it large enough to withstand an atomic blast. Extra mass is a design requisite.
Exert from Wikipedia.
1959 report by General Atomics[1] explored the parameters of three different sizes of hypothetical Orion spacecraft:
Orion
Orion
Orion
The biggest design above is the "super" Orion design; at 8 million tons, it could easily be a city.[2] In interviews, the designers contemplated the large ship as a possible interstellar ark. This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials.
Exert form an Interview with Orion project leader George Dyson.
Project Orion, while wonderfully inventive, seems in retrospect to have been a frightening undertaking raising questions about its environmental impact if attempted and what impact it would have had on the Cold War. Do you yourself think the project should have been completed?
At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much. It's impossible to say what the impact on the cold war would have been. In my view, what really won the cold war, in the end, was not Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, but the Interstate Highway System. Had we really gone full-speed and large scale into deep space, the cold war would have ended sooner, I suspect.
Funny as hell, that the ;argest ship powered by nuclear bombs that can be the size of an entire city is written in arabic.
Oh, those silly terrorists
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
To the OP:
NASA is still the exact same org that has been here since the 50s and 60s. The problem is the government running it. NASA pumps out tons of great ideas and is just as passionate about exploration is ever, but the government has cut our funding by leaps and bounds. Another reason for NASA's seeming downfall is the public and the news media. If one more vehicle turns into a big fire cracker, NASA is done with. That's not how it should be. I mean, astronauts sign up knowing they're risking their lives. They didn't sign up expecting to sit around and be perfectly safe.
Look at the old times of exploration, it wasn't safe. If it was safe, everyone would be doing it!
As for the exploration only thing, what else is NASA supposed to do? There's plenty of private firms doing plenty of research. NASA was founded to be an agency for exploration, not for inventing the next best bedding material. On the same topic of bedding material, all "invented by NASA" products are biproducts of researching technologies for exploration. I would type a lot more but for some reason my internet explorer keeps locking up
. Guess where I work... lol the irony.
Our space program does more than just go look at other planets and fly out into space. It prompts the formation of new technologies, it allows new forms of research to occur, it teaches us about our origins, it encourages kids to become interested in learning science because they see what knowledge can accomplish, and it keeps the human imagination alive. The returns from space exploration are incredible.
Yeah, there are problems on this planet, but knowing that we are able to do great things when we work together towards accomplishment gives us new hope in solving those problems. It also gives struggling nations incentive to work on making themselves competitive.
Yes I know it got some good stuff and such. But I still think that we should focus on something else (the environment) for some time to get it going in the right direction at least. After that I think we can turn our heads back to what we used to do, but also keep in mind the problems in the past.
What you describe could mostly be seen as inspiring rather than doing any good in itself except looking cool and inspiring others. I would judge our own planet over the good stuff you get from the space program though. At least for a while.
For me the space program feels like something like a hobby. It's something you by the side of other stuff because you are interested, got the time and the money. You aren't forced to send people into space because of some reason, yet you do it to discover what's out there. The Global Warming (and the Global Dimming too) are problems that we are forced to do something with though.
I think we should leave the hobby for a while and turn on more pressing matters. After we've got a good way on fixing these matters we can turn our attention back to the hobby.
Call me short sighted if you want. But I prefer seeing it as looking further away. If we don't turn our full-heartedly attention to the Global Warming (and the Global Dimming) we will be facing increasing problems in the future. These problems must be handled why they still can be. The space program is expensive, and taking money from it will allow us to get on the right course with the problem.
Hopefully you got the meaning of my post. It became a bit messy.
Let me point out the irony of your statement there.
You say we should focus on something like our environment instead of space travel. But, consider this. If we were to go to Mars and start doing experiments there, we would inadvertently learn more about our own environment. Seeing and learning what happened on the surface of other planets could be a way of figuring out what could happen to our own.
However, Mars and Earth got different atmospheres and well a few thing are alike, but mostly they are different. It's not as easy as we can just go off to Mars and destroy the planet in an attempt to see what we did wrong. Consider that we already know the problem (or at least the most of us can agree on that we know the problem, don't start debating that thanks?).
Consider the irony in your post. It's been said by NASA that we could get to Mars about year 2020! By then it's to late. And even if we could get to Mars in a shorter future we would need to establish a base and much more before we could actually start experimenting. By that time solving the problems we have at our own planet will require even more determination to fix.
You look a bit too far into the future. You can't look all too far into the future, because then you could as well say it all doesn't matter, because some day the sun will stop burning and we will die here on our cold planet. The space program yields successes that are pretty instant. In the long run the stuff you get from the space program is instant and easy to see, it will of course keep giving stuff back and by time this stuff would become better and better, right? So we could say it's still a instant gratification, but when we look far into the future we can see that the gratification has became better.
The space program will indeed, in the long run, be more important than this planet. But by the time it will Global Warming will have managed to flood the whole planet and there are only few surviving humans left. If we get on the right path with global warming (and dimming) the human race will (probably) last long enough for the space program to make it possible to move the entire population.
Ok, maybe that's an unfair jab at you. But look, the thing you are failing to understand is that NASA can't do everything. Limited budget, man, that's what you need to keep in mind. You seem to think that the director of NASA can snap his fingers and suddenly have unlimited funding. You also seem to have the impression that moon bases can appear overnight as the product of wishfull thinking. Well sorry, it doesn't work that way.
The assumption you seem to be making is that NASA could do anything and everything that anyone could imagine but that they are holding back for no real reason. What I'm trying to tell you is that they can't do everything. Choices have to be made. What I originally thought this thread was about was whether or not NASA has been making the correct choices in which projects to fund. Unfortunately I have discovered that you are just upset that we don't have Star Trek ships yet and were complaining because obviously NASA could build them tommorrow if they wanted to but they refuse to build them for no apparent reason.
Ugh, whatever.