NationStates Jolt Archive

me personally i think sending expensive probes out to space to collect rocks or what have you is a waste of money.
What is your view????

We as human beings are doomed as long as we sit on this one rock, revolving about the sun. Doomed for so many reasons too, we wait for meteors, plagues, climate-changing events, world-wide famine creating events, etc.

Space is a frontier, the same as the Americas were a frontier to the early European settlers. There is success to be had in space, and prosperity, and a higher guarantee of the human race.

Space also gives land and job opportunities to the masses. Space provides us with a challenge, and a reason to come together, and not sit and fester as mice in a cage, waiting for the day we are fed to the snake. We must break the chains of our terrestrial dependancy and move into the frontier, and into the future.

If the opportunity were to arrise, I would be one of the first volunteers.

while you guys are complaining on how space travel is a waste of money, i'll be on teh first shuttle out of this rock. this planet is dying and were killing it, so lets get off this one and go kill another!

still think the money spent on collecting dust and stuff can be spent better

It does provide some fringe benefits in terms of technologies developed for the space programme which can be put to more earthly applications. But to really take advantage of that effect we need another space race. We should take the money out of CAP and feed it into ESA and then challenge the americans to see who can say put a base on the moon or summat.

If done in a practical way, no. I do think we should be spending more of our time looking for other inhabitable planets and attempting to develop space travel than collecting rocks from Pluto, but that's just me.

Space exploration is not a waste of money. It might be argued that the money may be spent more effectively within the space exploration, but the exploration in itself should definitelly receive funds. Our future certainly lies outside our planet.

Short term, it is. Long term, it isn't.

If we don't do anything fun or interesting with our time, what's the point of being alive?

me personally i think sending expensive probes out to space to collect rocks or what have you is a waste of money.
What is your view????
Seemingly pointless research often yields profitable and usefull technology later on. Some dude named James Clerk Maxwell wrote some equations that had no real world applications in their time, but paved the way for an understanding of Radio waves which introduced wireless communications later on. The Curies wasted loads of time and money grinding up rocks to extract tiny ammounts of radium. Without their seemingly pointless effort we probably woudn't have nuclear power plants.
You never know what future benefits seemingly useless research will someday yield.

If done in a practical way, no. I do think we should be spending more of our time looking for other inhabitable planets and attempting to develop space travel than collecting rocks from Pluto, but that's just me.
Forget colonizing other planets, build space colonies in orbit around the earth. Granted, building just one would be a task of monumental proportions, but we could probably mine space rock for our resources.

me personally i think sending expensive probes out to space to collect rocks or what have you is a waste of money.
What is your view????
Hell no! Not only does it advance the frontiers of knowledge and give added developmental momentum to techonology, but if we don't move into space, we're doomed to extinction.

How else will we find out what is out there?

We must continue to explore, to expand the boundaries of our knowledge, to reach for the stars...

otherwise, why have minds full of imagination, and hands to build rockets to the stars?

And besides, we don't spend nearly enough on space. That is why the space shuttles keep blowing up. They were always promoted as cheap transportation, and that is what they are.

More money for space!!!

No, it's not a waste of time, money or energy. Double the effort, I say. Once we've made our own planet completely uninhabitable by our agressive and negative environmental practices, we'll need someplace else to go. Better to find it beforehand.

No, it's not a waste of time, money or energy. Double the effort, I say. Once we've made our own planet completely uninhabitable by our agressive and negative environmental practices, we'll need someplace else to go. Better to find it beforehand.
I can virtually guarantee that something else will get us long before that happens. :(

I can virtually guarantee that something else will get us long before that happens. :(


Yeah I think a giant meteor is coming our way in 2007 i read something on that.

Dark Shadowy snip.

Seconded

NASA, once king of space exploration and research, is not going to be so for much longer if the it continues on its present path. The problems it faces - caused by multiple failures to enforce quality of workmanship and ensure reasonable safety with the shuttle program, evidenced by the Columbia disaster in February 2003, the destruction of the unmanned Mars Surveyor mission, and various other spacecraft, are now causing some to wonder why the United States continues supporting the agency. Even with all these failures, however, there are many things that NASA has done, and done right, and those should not be overlooked. Those who seek to severely cut NASA’s budget and divert it to other, more down to earth programs may be interested in knowing that such commonplace items such as some toys and golf balls use technology derived from NASA research [1]. NASA has impacted nearly every person in the world since its inception in the late 1950s - the benefits of space research and exploration are clear.

From the golf balls mentioned above to non-invasive biopsy methods, the technology spawned by NASA has come back to Earth and paid for itself in both human life and financial gain [2]. Would cell phones have been popular, or even invented, if satellite communications were not around to inspire them [3]? Another technology, telemetry - that is, remotely measuring and reporting information back to an operator - is an example of the dual benefits of space research. Originally used to send back critical data on spacecraft missions so that the ground control crews knew what was happening on the vehicle, now it is used widely in the private sector as burglar alarms or hospital monitors, where it protects property and saves lives [4].

NASA’s mission is not just to fly people up in space, however. Through its giving away of much of the technical specifications on many of the technologies it has developed for use in space, NASA contributes in no small way to the well-being of the entire word. For example, a water filtration system devised by Shuttle program engineers is also being used in third world countries to supply potable water to those who have no other way of getting it [5].

Pure research, especially in astrophysics and the origin of the universe, has also had great advances due entirely to the ability to put telescopes like the Hubble into space. The Hubble, launched in 1990, while hampered with a defective mirror (this time the result of a NASA contractor), still was able to bring back, clearer than ever before pictures of the universe. A few notable things that the Hubble done: shown the age of the universe (14.7 billion years), determined that the universe is expanding indefinitely, and viewed the immediate aftermath of the big bang at the very edge of the universe. Currently the Hubble is in desperate need of repair in order to prevent it falling to earth, and a mission to repair it would only offer a temporary fix.. Fortunately, however, there is another telescope to be launched in 2011: the James Webb Space Telescope. With a primary mirror being as large as a two car garage, it is a massive improvement, even over the already substantial Hubble [6].

Astronomy is not the only thing that NASA spends its research time on; many automated probes are used to gather information from all around the Solar System. Recently, the Deep Impact probe fired a projectile into the comet Tempel 1 to expose the ice, dust and other materials that make up the inner core of comets. Some evidence gathered from this has challenged the leading theory of cometary formation and will undoubtably continue to stimulate speculation on their origin in the future. Just last month the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was launched on a five year mission to seek out hydrothermal deposits and minerals that show signs of having been in the water.

There are reasons other than the nebulous ideas of science and technological advance to continue the space program as well. The international prestige of achieving the President’s directive for sending more astronauts to the moon would be useful, and the experience gained from completing that goal could be used for the later manned Mars mission that is currently on the books. Indeed, the much maligned International Space Station is to be used for that purpose as well, and will prove valuable in determining the long-term effects of living in space have on humans.

The cooperation of other countries on the space program can cement relations with other countries and establish a lucrative market for advanced manufacturing, thus jumpstarting the space industry and bringing prices down low enough so that private entrepreneurs have the ability to make companies based in or for space and, in so doing, drive the costs of going in to space down still further with the competition they generate. NASA has already done this with many of their inventions: they’ve created a mature product, then given it to an associate to develop it commercially. The results? Those items like golf balls and water filters that are used every day.

China has openly announced plans to visit the moon by 2018 - the same year as the US - and investigate the possibility of mining the oxygen and helium-3 from the lunar soil. Helium-3 is a proposed fuel for fusion reactors, and oxygen could be used for making rocket fuel without having to lift it out of the Earth’s gravity well. If mining does happen, the probability of there being a permanent moonbase by one country or another is very high. The ability to provide cheap fuel and energy would immediately open up much more of the solar system to exploration and further discovery. There is no way of knowing what sort of benefits may come as side effects of getting to the moon, just as there was no way of knowing to what use much of NASA’s research and development has been put to after its primary purpose has been fulfilled.

But should we buy those things with the lives of astronauts? The Columbia disintegrated over Texas just two years ago, and, while safety has improved significantly for the shuttle program since then, it is still subject to the risks that all highly complicated devices have, especially when failure of a critical component while in space can kill near-instantly. An interesting thing of note, however, is that only eighteen astronauts have died in flight since NASA began nearly fifty years ago [7]. Accepting the risk of cars for simple transportation is fine, but when there is a substantial outcry against space exploration simply because the astronauts are put to slighter greater risks means that either there must be some sort of misunderstanding going on with the media, or it is simply using the inaccuracy to grab headlines. The astronauts know what they’re getting into when they sign up for the astronaut program and they understand risk, many of them being test pilots for the military. If they think it is worth it, danger and all, why should those far less qualified to determine that risk decide whether or not NASA’s program be ended?

The size of NASA’s budget is also seemingly up for grabs. At about .7% of the federal budget, the $15.5 billion dollars assigned to NASA for the fiscal year 2004 is small in comparison to other federal programs and gives a disproportionate benefit to its cost. This, of course, is the first thing that the shortsighted politicians who cannot see beyond their next election think of cutting. The UK is considering renewed funding for manned space flight, something they have traditionally not supported [8] and we, with our manned programs already in place, do not want to continue?

In the end, the decision will be up to the normal person that goes to an eight to five job and gets home to read the paper, check the internet and understand. Understand that the faults of the administration are not the faults of NASA’s mission; that the faults of the people who didn’t think of converting English to Metric are not the faults of the idea behind it; that there is a future in space, and decides that America, at least, will be the country that finds it.

Works cited:
[1] Unknown Author. “AT THE STADIUM...Golfball Aerodynamics.” NASA. 13 Nov. 2005.
<http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home/sport3.html>
[2] Alcorn, George. “Breast Biopsy System.” NASA. Jan 1 1994. 13 Nov. 2005. <http://technology.nasa.gov/Success_Story_Detail.cfm?PKEY=1000012&category=Success%20Stories>
[3] Unknown Author. “FOR SCIENCE...Global Communications.” NASA. 13 Nov. 2005.
<http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home/science3.html>
[4] Unknown Author. “General-Purpose Biomedical Telemetry System.” NASA. 13 Nov. 2005.
<http://technology.nasa.gov/Success_Story_Detail.cfm?PKEY=2081&category=Success%20Stories>
[5] Marconi, Elaine M. "Water, Water Everywhere!" NASA. 13 May 2004. 09 Nov. 2005. <http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/f_water.html>.
[6] Weed, William Speed. “ASTRONOMY'S NEXT BIG THINGS.” Popular Science. Apr. 2005, p74-81.
[7] Oberg, James. "Astronaut." NASA. 13 Nov. 2005. <http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/astronaut_worldbook.html>
[8] Schirber, Michael. “Brits in Space?” Science Now. 18 Oct. 2005, p2-3.

You're welcome.

You mean a WASTE of money. Hmm. Well lets see do you think that research can help you to create pure substances and create anything from pure clean water to a cure for cancer. I would say space research is well worth the money.:headbang:

[Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig snip]
You're welcome.

holy shit buddy how long did it take you to do all that?

holy shit buddy how long did it take you to do all that?A day or two, off and on. I had written it for something else, but it looked like a good time to post it. It looks impressively long, doesn't it? :D

A day or two, off and on. I had written it for something else, but it looked like a good time to post it. It looks impressively long, doesn't it? :D

yes my brain exploded while reading it. good job.

Space exploration is one of the few things worth spending money on. Why?

The alternatives: Food, clothing, cars, fuel and all the other shizzle that makes the vast majority of a nation's spending may be necessary, but its ultimately pointless. It just get's used up so we can exist. Oh, yay. But what are we actually going to do with that existence? Hey, let's see who wins American Idol.

It's better than killing each other: because this seems to be what countries with large amounts of surplus cash get up to. And more relevantly, it actually helps give humans a common cause.

As has been pointed out, we're otherwise doomed: A system with one node is fragile. A system with many nodes, like a league of planets, is not. Simple survival.

I think most people just see it for what it is and think "Why are they going all that way for some rock? We got rock here." But you don't need to be a genius to know that we can't run before we walk. It takes a lot of probes and experiments before we know enough to get to the 'fun part': the landing and flying about and building stuff.

Explore all you want. You'll never find my secret lair on Pluto.

EDIT: Damn

Also, something very few people realize is that NASA spending (less than $7 billion a year) is pocket change compared to other major US Federal Programs (over $400 billion a year for the US military, over $450 billion for social security (in outlays; inlays still exceed outlays, however), and over $350 billion in Medicare/Medicaid (values based on results posted by the OMB fro FY2003)). When you consider that without NASA we wouldn't have such conveniences as:

--cell phones
--GPS
--satellite television
--Microwaves (which were invented by someone at a company that was contracting out to the early military space exploration program shortly after the second world war)
--Hurricane forecasts
--countless other major and minor technical advances


While it is true that there have been two catastrophic failures during shuttle flights--those of the Challenger and the Columbia--there have been well over 100 successful shuttle flights in over 25 years of service. If you drove the same car model--the same half-a-dozen cars--continually for 25 years, I expect you'd get into an accident at least twice.

Admittedly the shuttle itself is somewhat outdated--it was, after all, designed nearly 30 years ago--but this only means that a newer launch vehicle should be developed. The X prize proved that developing a launch vehicle can be done cheaply and reasonably effectively (although I certainly wouldn't want to fly on the vehicle that won the X prize; given the telemetry problems it had I'd be a lot more afraid of it blowing up than I would of something going wrong on the thirty-year-old relic that is the shuttle).

Forget colonizing other planets, build space colonies in orbit around the earth. Granted, building just one would be a task of monumental proportions, but we could probably mine space rock for our resources.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

Best idea ever!

I can virtually guarantee that something else will get us long before that happens. :(
Just what the hell are you planning?

The benefits of space exploration go way beyond just knowing about our universe...the money spent goes to research in hundreds of major, cutting edge areas of the physical sciences as well as in to mathematics, engineering, and computers. In reality, the results of the missions are small compared to the benefits that come from the research and development of the missions themselves.

There are numerous technological advances and major companies whose origins stem from the space program; to call it a waste of money would discredit the thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in economic gain, and decades of technological innovation that the space research environment has led to over the decades.

If anything, the space program should be greatly expanded to help the US (as well as its partners on similar projects) maintain a standard of excellence for mathematical and scientific innovation for the future...our economy, and the world economy, would lose many billions more in the long run than could have ever been saved by the cuts to the space program.

while you guys are complaining on how space travel is a waste of money, i'll be on teh first shuttle out of this rock. this planet is dying and were killing it, so lets get off this one and go kill another!
In the extremely unlikely event that this happens, I doubt you'd be invited.
Swarms that trash theior environment and then move off somewhere else are pretty rare in nature: it's far more usual for them to suffer a malthusian population crash afterwards.

me personally i think sending expensive probes out to space to collect rocks or what have you is a waste of money.
What is your view????

With the huge amount of resources available on this planet, what is used for space exploration is comparitively little. Meanwhile, the potential longterm payoff could be huge.

If by waste you mean shiny clothes (http://www.fi.edu/pieces/hiley/images/photos/space-suit-mercury7a.jpg), then hell no!

Last thing I heard, in astronomy class (allthough that is a while back now), was that the Apollo program alone had earned its own worth 14 times. It's propably more by now.

I think sending humans into space is mostly a waste of money. We've learned so much more from unmanned probes than manned ships. I think it's really the adventurous side of us that sends humans into space. But really, there are so many unknown and undiscovered stuff still on Earth!