Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....."If we were talking about any planets within a couple years travel to reach (even with light speed capabilities), there are no life forms there to tread on....."
And you are sure that this is true? Maybe you are, but I don't consider myself wise enough to make such a statement.
"....It has given us much more, and many of the things would not have been developed because they are developed for some wild space application at a pretty wild price tag, then later realized potential and previous development makes it able to be developed for earthbound application........"
The key words are "pretty wild price tag." Is it not possible that if something were actually NEEDED, that someone would have developed it at a more reasonable cost? This is wasteful, price-is-no-object thinking. Many things are good to have, make life nicer,etc. but could we get along without them?
But, at the same time, I hate to think of all the people in the space program being unemployed.
Yes I have sufficient background both in interest, research, and education to make that claim. More than anything, that claim is by default. The closest star system is 4 light years away (Alpha Centauri) and that is such a distance that we don't even know if there are any planets orbiting any of the three suns, plus a manned flight to the location would take a lifetime and isn't close to feasible. Alpha Centauri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I was indicating before though, some technologies simply cannot be realized in a time crunch. If right now, we had to develop exothermic fusion energy in 8 years or go exstinct, we would do the latter. It is these types of achievements that cannot be done once they are needed, but rather must be worked on slowly over a great time, and admittingly, at a cost above market price. People don't mind when their money goes towards schooling for the younger generation because they are "investing" in our future. Think of NASA and ISS along with other consortiums of country space programs as "investing" in the future of humanity.
There are other things that need funding right now, but you can't tell me NASA is the first or only place you can find wasteful spending. Save the NASA cuts for real emergencies, ones that we may not come out of alive, like WWIII.
I disagree, I am interested in our survival no matter what. .
That is nothing but a self-serving argument, that has no objective validity. The pathogens attacked by your bar of hand soap could make the same argument. (And could probably make it more cogently than some of the humans I've seen in this forum.)
If we were to colonize another planet, we would no longer be free-range humans. We would either have to live forever in an artificial environment, or would have to evolve into a new species that is adapted to the new environment. We would now be the fish that would evolve into amphibians elsewhere. Why would a fish have cared three billion years ago if it were going to evolve into WalterK?
Evolution is largely the result of self-preservation instincts. We are the only species on the planet to show a decent ability to ignore our instincts. It is the fishes self-preservation instincts that allowed it to evolve into WalterK.
It is by those same self-preservation feelings that I believe we should never stifle our quest to solve problems that are 5 steps ahead of the problems staring us in the face.
As an analogy, think of the operation of a power plant. You have many 1000 employees. Some work on problems that crop up on a day to day basis. So work on problems a week in advance. Some do the manual labor. So trade the power on an open market. Some market the company to maintain good PR. So monitor and minimize impacts to the environment.
Then there is one group that works solely in solving problems that won't happen for 20 years (I've actually worked in this department before). It is a slow moving issue with slow solutions though, and takes 20 years to solve. If no one worked in this department, catostrophic failure would occur when the problem hits.
I understand the argument for not paying for a space program. We have enough problems here at home that need our attention.
However, many of our problems come from one thing, running out of room/natural resources. As more people are born, they want more, and it costs more to live. We can't continue at our current rate of growth and consumption and have much of a hope for the future of the species.
We need to grow, if anything about our history is true, its that we are at our best when we have somewhere new to go. Humans are natural explorers. A base on the moon would be a start. If we can show that there is money to be made by exploring/utilizing the moon, then free enterprise can take over the effort.
If our species has a future, it will be in space. Of course we'll stay here at home to, but our only hope of survival is out there, away from here. Sooner or later, this planet will die, and with it us.
The age old questions apply,
"If not now, when? If not us, whom?"
Things will only get worse and worse on our little third rock from the sun. Can you imagine what we can do with a whole other planet to colonize? Now we aren't going to go to Alpha Centauri anytime soon, but the moon and Mars are just right next door.
I have stated a number of time's, that in my opinion the very best thing that we could do with NASA is to fold it into the Department of Defense, after all in this day and age, is it more important to know whats on mars, or develope the capabilities to protect our country from outerspace,? Not to mention the technology that can be gained and used millitarily.
NASA is this countries biggest boondoggle. The biggest bureaucratic disaster since Bush was appointed Dictator. I dont have a problem going up there 40 years ago. But since then we learned that there is nothing up there. No resources at all, no water, no energy, no life of any kind. Nothing but rocks and dirt.
The money spent on this bureaucratic disaster each year would be enough to give every man woman and child free health care. 100% free with no co-pays. Some years it would have also payed for a college education for anyone wishing to further their educatio....no cost to the student. That money could eliminate hunger in America, cloth and house the poor, help the sick and elderly. Rebuild our economy.
Can anyone tell me the benefit of bringing an orange or a pear to the moon and just lay it down to watch how it decomposes? How does this help anyone or anything? Just how many more moon rocks do Scientists need to study?
The money spent on this bureaucratic disaster each year would be enough to give every man woman and child free health care. 100% free with no co-pays. Some years it would have also payed for a college education for anyone wishing to further their educatio....no cost to the student. That money could eliminate hunger in America, cloth and house the poor, help the sick and elderly. Rebuild our economy.
All of these are bandaids on a gunshot wound, neosporin on AIDS. It sounds great, and helps interm problems.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime."
My point is we must not stop pursuing things that are currently out of reach. If you can go through the government spending, and not find wasteful spending that could fund all the things you just mentioned, then it may be time for the space program to go (for instance, I don't think N Korea is in a financial position to have a space program). We could fund all the things you said just by cutting back on aid we give to other countries.
Take all science innovation money, send it inward and give everyone free stuff for one generation and you will ruin our civilization. We need reason to work, take it away by providing everything, all innovation, ambition, and incentives die in one generation. It'd be worse than nuclear war.
I've heard somewhere it costs about 5 million bucks to send someone up. That's a lot of cash that could be spent elsewhere.
5 million is how much Manny Ramiraz lost when he was on suspension.
The '09 budget for NASA is about $150 per household, which would cover one office appointment with a GP and the antibiotics he prescribes for a condition that you could easily diagnose yourself on WebMD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
