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.
i would especially like to quote the following points:
“Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”
"Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P. "
it is also important to remember that speaking from a strictly economic standpoint, as pointed out in this article there are unlimited untapped resources in space in asteriods: BBC News | Sci/Tech | Gold rush in space?
i would especially like to quote the following points:
“Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”
"Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P. "
it is also important to remember that speaking from a strictly economic standpoint, as pointed out in this article there are unlimited untapped resources in space in asteriods: BBC News | Sci/Tech | Gold rush in space?
Simple solution. If Folks feel NASA is money well spent--then put the idea up for a vote, and let the People paying for it decide. To say how little each person is paying, is not good enough, as long as they have no say in the matter. I could use those pennies to buy a can of Spam. I have never liked anyone to tell me how much something hurts me. I can decide that pretty well on my own. thank you very much.
Yeah, the media's brainless coverage of all too many topics astounds the more intellectual and thoughtful among us.
For now, NASA is THE agency that coordinates it all. Jealous military types and other agencies have it in for NASA, unfortunately, but look at what they have accomplished. Anyone want to point out their favorite government agency that has done whatever their thing was flawlessly, with no mistakes, ever? I thought not.
The costs of learning about living in, and exploring, space are, to my way of thinking, critical to our eventual long-term survival. We'll eventually have to get the heck offa this planet, and could even have to do so in the relatively near future if we were "swatted" by, say, a 5 km diameter meteorite that caused long-term global dearth and destruction. We should have an alternate temporary home on, let's say, the moon. That place could easily sustain a permanent population of 250,000 people, given it's sources of water and other probable minerals.
(It could sustain many more than that, but hey, for once, let's think "managed population growth", and not "New Moonscape Condos at Um-believable Prices! This Weekend Only, and we'll guarantee you Free Passage, one-way, to your new Lunar Love-Nest!)
At the same time, we should be investigating and practicing the construction of a true Ark space travel system, capable of leaving this solar system permanently with about 50,000 - 70,000 people on board, capable of taking on water, etc. from passing space junk (ice balls, etc.). On-board food production, oxygen/carbon cycle regeneration, solar and nuclear fission power and low-level but continuous propulsion. Recreation facilities, advanced education, laboratories, etc. etc. And, as it proceeds on it's voyage, it utilizes "local" resources it comes across to add to it's available architecture.
As new on-board space is made available, the population could be allowed to grow, and even depart in smaller groups in other directions.
I calculate it would take about ten 15- -20 km diameter geodesic spheres for each 10,000 people. Slow spinning to create artificial gravity. Lets' get with it; robotically mine the minerals on the moon, bunt them out into space through the lower gravity and lack of troublesome atmosphere there, build it out in space rather than pre-assembling here on Earth. Imagine what we'd learn!
We should immediately set up, in the bleakest part of Arizona, and then Greenland, and then some Arctic desert, a stand-alone colony. Where of course we could rescue the inhabitants as necessary, and as we learn, but that colony in Arizona (what was it called?) failed before even one year.
I wonder if it was because they knew there was an easy out. We need more dedicated types. I'm ready! (but... can I bring my cats?)
(*** oh yeah; we'd have to stop our stupid fighting here on Earth..... so you may be right; it may be completely impossible for our arrogant, greedy species to ever do this altruistic thing)
Yeah, the media's brainless coverage of all too many topics astounds the more intellectual and thoughtful among us.
For now, NASA is THE agency that coordinates it all. Jealous military types and other agencies have it in for NASA, unfortunately, but look at what they have accomplished. Anyone want to point out their favorite government agency that has done whatever their thing was flawlessly, with no mistakes, ever? I thought not.
The costs of learning about living in, and exploring, space are, to my way of thinking, critical to our eventual long-term survival. We'll eventually have to get the heck offa this planet, and could even have to do so in the relatively near future if we were "swatted" by, say, a 5 km diameter meteorite that caused long-term global dearth and destruction. We should have an alternate temporary home on, let's say, the moon. That place could easily sustain a permanent population of 250,000 people, given it's sources of water and other probable minerals.
(It could sustain many more than that, but hey, for once, let's think "managed population growth", and not "New Moonscape Condos at Um-believable Prices! This Weekend Only, and we'll guarantee you Free Passage, one-way, to your new Lunar Love-Nest!)
At the same time, we should be investigating and practicing the construction of a true Ark space travel system, capable of leaving this solar system permanently with about 50,000 - 70,000 people on board, capable of taking on water, etc. from passing space junk (ice balls, etc.). On-board food production, oxygen/carbon cycle regeneration, solar and nuclear fission power and low-level but continuous propulsion. Recreation facilities, advanced education, laboratories, etc. etc. And, as it proceeds on it's voyage, it utilizes "local" resources it comes across to add to it's available architecture.
As new on-board space is made available, the population could be allowed to grow, and even depart in smaller groups in other directions.
I calculate it would take about ten 15- -20 km diameter geodesic spheres for each 10,000 people. Slow spinning to create artificial gravity. Lets' get with it; robotically mine the minerals on the moon, bunt them out into space through the lower gravity and lack of troublesome atmosphere there, build it out in space rather than pre-assembling here on Earth. Imagine what we'd learn!
We should immediately set up, in the bleakest part of Arizona, and then Greenland, and then some Arctic desert, a stand-alone colony. Where of course we could rescue the inhabitants as necessary, and as we learn, but that colony in Arizona (what was it called?) failed before even one year.
I wonder if it was because they knew there was an easy out. We need more dedicated types. I'm ready! (but... can I bring my cats?)
(*** oh yeah; we'd have to stop our stupid fighting here on Earth..... so you may be right; it may be completely impossible for our arrogant, greedy species to ever do this altruistic thing)
I like it fine here. but do sometimes feel others should move somewhere.
Simple solution. If Folks feel NASA is money well spent--then put the idea up for a vote, and let the People paying for it decide. To say how little each person is paying, is not good enough, as long as they have no say in the matter. I could use those pennies to buy a can of Spam. I have never liked anyone to tell me how much something hurts me. I can decide that pretty well on my own. thank you very much.
There were many reasons why the founding fathers decided that we didn't need a direct democracy. One of the main reasons is that the general population doesn't know whats in its own best interest.
If we had a direct democracy the Nazis, for instance, would still be in control of Europe. Americans didn't feel the need to supply England with War munitions before 1941, yet FDR and the federal government knew if we didn't help them they would fall to the Nazis.
Thats just one example. Space exploration, is another one of those examples.
There were many reasons why the founding fathers decided that we didn't need a direct democracy. One of the main reasons is that the general population doesn't know whats in its own best interest.
If we had a direct democracy the Nazis, for instance, would still be in control of Europe. Americans didn't feel the need to supply England with War munitions before 1941, yet FDR and the federal government knew if we didn't help them they would fall to the Nazis.
Thats just one example. Space exploration, is another one of those examples.
So we, the people are to dumb to make decisons about how the gubment should spend our hard earned money. So the Gubment will just spend it, as they see fit, because they know better than us, what is best. Sounds about right. And is at the root of many of our problems.
"Go fill up the diesel 4X4 crewcab and speedboat, Frank. I wanna go cruisin'!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42
Here's the short list of what NASA has done for you (or things you wouldn't have were it not for NASA and it's predecessor, NACA:
(snip of amaizng but only parital list...)
Got any more dumb ideas about cancelling research programs?
good list, sponger. of course, you could then look at the spin-offs of each of THESE items as well. It's an exponential growth thing, tho' most don't understand that concept either.
Yeah, those "leave it well enough alone" types would still be having to shoe their ponies before a 5 mph trip downtown...
Do I support a more localized Agrarian society, absent the Los Angeles civil [de]structure model? You betcha. It's called living within your ecological means, but then technology can and has allowed us to do more with so much less, and we've only tipped the iceberg. Imagine what we would learn by setting up a moon colony. About careful, indeed critical, conservation methods, and what would we learn about closed system dynamics and system interdependence?
("What's he talking about, Martha? Closed what whatzit? Damn eggheads! BTW, pass me my bourbon bottle and Rice Krispie treats, would-jah?")
You know: now we fertilize a field and congratulate ourselves when we grow real big corncobs, but we ignore where the fertilizer runoff went, of what damage we did to the aquifer by over-pumping it. Hey; who cares, long as I get my cheap cornflakes, right?
So we, the people are to dumb to make decisons about how the gubment should spend our hard earned money. So the Gubment will just spend it, as they see fit, because they know better than us, what is best. Sounds about right. And is at the root of many of our problems.
I offered you a direct example of why the founding fathers decided to give us a representative democracy, and you offered nothing in your come back.
The fact of the matter is, you don't have all of the information to make an informed decision. You can't, most of its top secret, and the general population can't know everything they need to make an informed decision. Thats why we elect representatives, of our fellow citizens, who can get the complete picture, to make a decision for us.
If you don't like their decision, then don't vote for them again.
I offered you a direct example of why the founding fathers decided to give us a representative democracy, and you offered nothing in your come back.
The fact of the matter is, you don't have all of the information to make an informed decision. You can't, most of its top secret, and the general population can't know everything they need to make an informed decision. Thats why we elect representatives, of our fellow citizens, who can get the complete picture, to make a decision for us.
If you don't like their decision, then don't vote for them again.
Thats the way our system of government works.
you gave me your interpretation. Let's not confuse that with "fact"---Or were you in the room, when those decision were being made???.
pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
It doesn't say "And to the democracy for which it stands" now does it?
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.
Alternate thinking......
