NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really a simple question, should governments on this planet continue funding towards Space Exploration?

My opinion is that we should increase funding. While it may take well over a century for great benefits to pay off, it is still worth it.

Space exploration can lead to great collaborations between various governments. (See ISS).

I just want to see other views on this topic.

The European powers became the dominant force in modern history through their discovery and exploitation of the New World; the state-funded expeditions were necessary to the colonization and economic viabiltiy of these colonies. The first nation to get a viable space colony or resource production base going will take the lead just like Spain did in the 16th century. The benefits to their economy and influence will be immeasurable.

The European powers became the dominant force in modern history through their discovery and exploitation of the New World; the state-funded expeditions were necessary to the colonization and economic viabiltiy of these colonies.

The first nation to get a viable space colony or resource production base going will take the lead just like Spain did in the 16th century.

While that was true back then, space exploration will require collaboration of several governments.

It will likely be at least a century before we can break light speed, we will reap benefits once we do.

Unfortunately, our space program is based on 40 year old technology. The Shuttle design is from the late 60s.

The good news is that NASA is building a replacement. We have no idea how far along they are, but it will be neat to see what they come up with. After all, no one knew how far along the Shuttle was until they unveiled Enterprise in ths 70s.

The European powers became the dominant force in modern history through their discovery and exploitation of the New World; the state-funded expeditions were necessary to the colonization and economic viabiltiy of these colonies. The first nation to get a viable space colony or resource production base going will take the lead just like Spain did in the 16th century. The benefits to their economy and influence will be immeasurable.That is totally and utterly incorrect. If I recall correctly, the most successful colonial power was England, which didn't fund the colonists and left it up to private businesses. Spain and Portugal paid more for their empires than they received in the end and are still relatively poor off.

The space program is one of the few that has paid for itself and then some in terms of technological advancement, so yes, we should keep funding it and expand it. But when I read a story about the new "put a man on the moon" plan that was introduced this week, I was quite disappointed, because it's not much different from the Apollo missions. Are we regressing technologically? Well, it's an improvement on that technology, but it's still not anything new or groundbreaking, and that bothers me.

Yes! We need to colonize space. So eventually there will be a real life Ice Pirates! :D

http://projectebola.typepad.com/photos/celeb_pictures/ice_pirates.jpg

Long Live The Space Herpe! :D

While that was true back then, space exploration will require collaboration of several governments.

I think the new Age of Exploration will be one of cooperation, but it's also going to become fiercely competitive once the private sector is viable on its own. The issue of territorial division is going to be tough as well.

It will likely be at least a century before we can break light speed, we will reap benefits once we do.

Unfortunately, our space program is based on 40 year old technology. The Shuttle design is from the late 60s.

The good news is that NASA is building a replacement. We have no idea how far along they are, but it will be neat to see what they come up with. After all, no one knew how far along the Shuttle was until they unveiled Enterprise in ths 70s.

I think the timeframe is highly speculative; we have to remember that there are more nations with the resources (both natural and mental) to develop space programs and engineer the kinds of technology necessary for space exploration and colonization.

However, unlike the first era which was mainly for scientific and patriotic reasons, this second era will be one driven primarily by economics. That's the reason why it will last a lot longer and have a permanent effect on our lives; after all, the Age of Exploration really began with the Vikings but didn't take off until Europeans wanted the wealth and trade opportunities of Asia.

yea, just so i can go to the moon on holiday... :eek: my mum thought the same thing 30 years ago :eek:

That is totally and utterly incorrect. If I recall correctly, the most successful colonial power was England, which didn't fund the colonists and left it up to private businesses. Spain and Portugal paid more for their empires than they received in the end and are still relatively poor off.

No, Spain and Portugal made tons from their empires and spent on other stuff on the continent. What really killed them was that it was relatively easy to get money from their colonies and so they choked off their own local production and economies. And when the colonies failed, so did the empires.

Yes, absolutely. The day we become scientifically static is the day we start to die as a race.

There should be no price on knowledge.

No, Spain and Portugal made tons from their empires and spent on other stuff on the continent. What really killed them was that it was relatively easy to get money from their colonies and so they choked off their own local production and economies. And when the colonies failed, so did the empires.Quite right, however England was too poor at the time to pay for the colonies itself. The trade companies were the ones that did the colonizing.

It will likely be at least a century before we can break light speed, we will reap benefits once we do.

Just a note: it is physically impossible to break the lightspeed barrier. The only physically possible (however improbable) method is the whole wormholes malarky, and even that is sketchy at best, and entirely theoretical.

That aside, I do think space exploration should be a priority for governments, just after sorting our own planet out. Even if the only way to colonise other solar systems is to send massive colony ships out on their own on massively long (thousands of years even) voyages, it'd be totally worth it, if only for the sake of having done so.

That is totally and utterly incorrect. If I recall correctly, the most successful colonial power was England, which didn't fund the colonists and left it up to private businesses. Spain and Portugal paid more for their empires than they received in the end and are still relatively poor off.

But during the 15th-18th centuries the most successful power was Spain, and that coincides roughly with the period we are in now in terms of space exploration. We're in the 1510's of space exploration.

England had a lot of indirect control over its colonies; they left the settlement and production up to private individuals but (following the Interregnum) controlled the trade and taxation of their colonies with nations other than England. Their model differed from Spain's because it made money off of the private sector rather than using the state to do the private sector's work.

Quite right, however England was too poor at the time to pay for the colonies itself. The trade companies were the ones that did the colonizing.

Did the colonizing with the full backing and support of the Crown's military power--it's not like the Crown wasn't putting something out there, and of course, they supplied the governing structure as well, and reaped the benefits of those colonies through taxing the companies. The only real difference I see between the two is that England employed a middle man to run the business end of things.

I think the new Age of Exploration will be one of cooperation, but it's also going to become fiercely competitive once the private sector is viable on its own. The issue of territorial division is going to be tough as well.

We've already had our era of competition with another nation. That would be our race to the moon with the USSR. I think the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission of 1975 ended the competitive era between nations. Since then, it has been cooperation with Russia and the US. I'd like to see the EU get on board with manned spaceflight. They could hopefully add to our progress. The Chinese have put a man in space already and are shooting towards the moon. As much as I don't like the current Chinese government, I hope they suceed. There is a lot for all of us to gain in humans exploring space. Territorial division is something that won't be an issue for at least a century. Who knows, if we have joint programs that might not be a problem.

You are right about the private sector though. Right now all you have is Virgin with the Spaceship One. I hope it does get competitive. That might drive the private sector to come up with innovations that benefit our exploration.


I think the timeframe is highly speculative; we have to remember that there are more nations with the resources (both natural and mental) to develop space programs and engineer the kinds of technology necessary for space exploration and colonization.
I agree we can't make a timeline. Is we have cooperation though, that will put more engineers and resource on the project. Since I attend Purdue, I can tell you that a lot of research is being done on the University size. Of course government funding and programs are needed to implement any solutions that are worked out by the Engineers.

However, unlike the first era which was mainly for scientific and patriotic reasons, this second era will be one driven primarily by economics. That's the reason why it will last a lot longer and have a permanent effect on our lives; after all, the Age of Exploration really began with the Vikings but didn't take off until Europeans wanted the wealth and trade opportunities of Asia.That is very true. A major reason for wanting to explore space is to find more resources. Our planet has major scarsity issues when it comes to resources. By definition, economics is really dealing with such scarsities. Space (or ocean) exploration seem like viable solutions.

More money towards space and less money towards the war machine.


Yeah... OK. I just made myself vomit a little bit on my chin. But, really. Space is neato.

I'd like to add that I'm also on painkillers.

But my point on space stands. Neato.

Just a note: it is physically impossible to break the lightspeed barrier. The only physically possible (however improbable) method is the whole wormholes malarky, and even that is sketchy at best, and entirely theoretical.

That aside, I do think space exploration should be a priority for governments, just after sorting our own planet out. Even if the only way to colonise other solar systems is to send massive colony ships out on their own on massively long (thousands of years even) voyages, it'd be totally worth it, if only for the sake of having done so.

It was thought impossible to break the soundbarrier.

Besides, we have no true testing on Einstein's theories so we don't know if it is even correct or not (Einstein was occasionally incorrect in his conclusions BTW).

Even if Einstein is correct, then there are ways around it. Now Star Trek is of course fiction, but they came up with the interesting idea of "warping space" to allow objects to move FTL.

Absolutely, there are sound reasons for funding space exploration, the least of which are economic.

In my opinion, there is grounds for concern about the direction NASA is taking. I feel that the return to the Moon and possibly Mars is being gone about in a way not designed to extract the maximum benefit in terms of knowledge and experience, but rather for propaganda, for publicity. This return to solid fuel, one shot fireworks is a backwards step. We should be working towards sustainable, constant and cheap space travel, not grand outings that ultimately give a smaller return. The major work in this direction is being carried out by commercial operators (see the X-prize), starting with far fewer resources and abilites. These operators are motivated by potential profit, and if profit becomes the prime motivator for exploration, then no end of trouble will result.

Well, you did ask for my views. :p

Absolutely, there are sound reasons for funding space exploration, the least of which are economic.

In my opinion, there is grounds for concern about the direction NASA is taking. I feel that the return to the Moon and possibly Mars is being gone about in a way not designed to extract the maximum benefit in terms of knowledge and experience, but rather for propaganda, for publicity. This return to solid fuel, one shot fireworks is a backwards step. We should be working towards sustainable, constant and cheap space travel, not grand outings that ultimately give a smaller return. The major work in this direction is being carried out by commercial operators (see the X-prize), starting with far fewer resources and abilites. These operators are motivated by potential profit, and if profit becomes the prime motivator for exploration, then no end of trouble will result.

Well, you did ask for my views. :p

IMO, there isn't much to gain from the low orbital space tourist flights that will develop from Space Ship One.

Trips to Mars while mainly done for publicity, will mean the first major propulsion breakthroughs since the 1960s. It will force us to come up with a much quicker form of space travel as our current propulsion systems are inadequate. Martian exploration will also allow us to truly explore the planet for any resources that may be there.

Trips to the Moon are also important as it could be used as a staging point for future longer distance space flights. A true long endurance flight can't be launched from Earth. Too much fuel and energy are used in achieving escape velocity from the Earth. I took a course on space exploration during my freshman year (I attend Purdue so my school is well renowned in this subject area). I forgot the numbers we came up with, but the escape velocity of earth is just insane when compared with Mars or the Moon.

While this seems like a backwards step, it will lead to greater progress than anything currently under works in the private sector.

It was thought impossible to break the soundbarrier.

Besides, we have no true testing on Einstein's theories so we don't know if it is even correct or not (Einstein was occasionally incorrect in his conclusions BTW).

Even if Einstein is correct, then there are ways around it. Now Star Trek is of course fiction, but they came up with the interesting idea of "warping space" to allow objects to move FTL.

Lol, true, and of course it was thought that the world was flat etc etc, but this time we have all sorts of theories that prove, insofar as a theory can be proven, that it is impossible. Namely our old friend E = mc^2

Now I'm not saying Einstein was infallible and that FTL travel is totally out of the question, but I am saying that we can be pretty sure it won't be happening any time soon, and certainly not within the century. Personally I'm all for General Relativity being disproved, since FTL travel would be super sweet and totally awesome, but I have fairly significant doubts about it ever happening.

IMO, there isn't much to gain from the low orbital space tourist flights that will develop from Space Ship One.

Trips to Mars while mainly done for publicity, will mean the first major propulsion breakthroughs since the 1960s. It will force us to come up with a much quicker form of space travel as our current propulsion systems are inadequate. Martian exploration will also allow us to truly explore the planet for any resources that may be there.

Trips to the Moon are also important as it could be used as a staging point for future longer distance space flights. A true long endurance flight can't be launched from Earth. Too much fuel and energy are used in achieving escape velocity from the Earth. I took a course on space exploration during my freshman year (I attend Purdue so my school is well renowned in this subject area). I forgot the numbers we came up with, but the escape velocity of earth is just insane when compared with Mars or the Moon.

While this seems like a backwards step, it will lead to greater progress than anything currently under works in the private sector.

Or better yet, a space elevator would be favourite in terms of a launching point for further deep-space exploration. And that is most certainly plausible, and relatively cheap, compared with some things governments squander money on.

Or better yet, a space elevator would be favourite in terms of a launching point for further deep-space exploration. And that is most certainly plausible, and relatively cheap, compared with some things governments squander money on.

I doubt that's feasible as both the moon and earth are in motion relative to eachother. Even if you built one, it would snap as soon as it was completed.

Lol, true, and of course it was thought that the world was flat etc etc, but this time we have all sorts of theories that prove, insofar as a theory can be proven, that it is impossible. Namely our old friend E = mc^2

Now I'm not saying Einstein was infallible and that FTL travel is totally out of the question, but I am saying that we can be pretty sure it won't be happening any time soon, and certainly not within the century. Personally I'm all for General Relativity being disproved, since FTL travel would be super sweet and totally awesome, but I have fairly significant doubts about it ever happening.

There are ways around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
This is a good intro on the subject.

I will agree that we won't see this any time in our century, but we do have to start somewhere.

space travel and exploration is crucial to the continued survival of the human race, what would we do, if tomorrow it was announced that our planet was going to disintegrate within a year, build a crappy space ark with existing technology? We definately need innovation in this area. Pity it will be driven by corporate interests though. Plus I think the ftl fix will come about in tandem with the emergence of a planetary government in about 800 years when petty national differences are put aside. It would be useful with respect to dealing with advanced alien races.

IMO, there isn't much to gain from the low orbital space tourist flights that will develop from Space Ship One.
Agreed, but the direction they are going in - resusable spaceplanes is an essential requirement for any large scale scientific or commercial development in the space industry. The tall fireworks may be fine for throwing satellites around, but they're no good for setting up a self sufficient moon colony, or running a permantent Mars settlement. It's like building a new lorry every time you need to go to the shops.
Trips to Mars while mainly done for publicity, will mean the first major propulsion breakthroughs since the 1960s. It will force us to come up with a much quicker form of space travel as our current propulsion systems are inadequate. Martian exploration will also allow us to truly explore the planet for any resources that may be there.
Again, the impression I get from NASA is that they are planning on using an Earth orbit constructed rocket, possibly nuclear electric propulsion (this is reusable), or a great big booster. The martian thing, particularly the prospecting, would require a more permanent transport service than one shot boosters can provide. And the whole ethics of strip mining another planet, particularly if life exists is whole other thread.
Trips to the Moon are also important as it could be used as a staging point for future longer distance space flights. A true long endurance flight can't be launched from Earth. Too much fuel and energy are used in achieving escape velocity from the Earth. I took a course on space exploration during my freshman year (I attend Purdue so my school is well renowned in this subject area). I forgot the numbers we came up with, but the escape velocity of earth is just insane when compared with Mars or the Moon.
Agreed, development of the moon is vital to any large scale use of space.
While this seems like a backwards step, it will lead to greater progress than anything currently under works in the private sector.

I don't have a problem with returning to the moon, it's just the manner NASA appears to be going that worries me. A rather dodgy analogy would be building a raft to cross the sea, where the raft is designed to fall apart when you get back; compare this to putting a bit more effort in, and bulding a fleet of boats.

What I'd like to see is NASA going where Virgin Galactic is going (minus the tourists), along the lines of reusable spaceplanes, spaceships and then a permanent sustainable precence in space.

There are ways around it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
This is a good intro on the subject.

I will agree that we won't see this any time in our century, but we do have to start somewhere.

Ah that's pretty funky - although some of the suggested methods are fairly wishy-washy, some of them seemed at least plausible. I certainly hope at least one of them is right - space exploration on the scale made possible by FTL would be... wow.

I doubt that's feasible as both the moon and earth are in motion relative to eachother. Even if you built one, it would snap as soon as it was completed.

Not to the moon - just into space, far enough from the Earth so that launching a craft would be all but effortless. In fact, you could even use the Earth's rotation from that point to sling the craft out in the desired direction, which would be pretty cool.

I doubt that's feasible as both the moon and earth are in motion relative to eachother. Even if you built one, it would snap as soon as it was completed.
Nuh-uh, space elevators are entirely feasible. Materials with the required tensile strength already exist. Ok, it's gonna take a long time developing, but the rewards are well worth it. The moon also has a negligible effect on objects in earth orbit.

Whitey on the Moon
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I wuz already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wuzn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, yeah we should continue to fund space exploration, but let's make sure that we don't forget to invest in our less fortunate brothers and sisters here on earth.

Eating icecream on Pluto is fun.
So, yes.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, yeah we should continue to fund space exploration, but let's make sure that we don't forget to invest in our less fortunate brothers and sisters here on earth.

Damn straight. Sort ourselves out here before we go gallivanting off to screw up some other planet. Not least because by improving the situation in third world countries we open the intellectual market to millions more potential geniuses (genii? I kinda like the sound of that word) who may well solve our space flight problems.

I guess it would depend on any tangible gains that could potentially be had by exploring outer space. Currently, our space programmes are more or less useless relics of the Cold War. There is no economic reason to build expensive probes to search various planets -- I really don't care if Pluto's core is made of 23% frozen nitrogen -- it's not going to have any impact on my life or anybody else's. I don't want to spend my tax money to fund such a waste of money. If it cannot help us in any practical way, then it is of no use to us. There are plenty of problems here on Earth already -- no need to look to the cosmos for more. Instead of spending on space, we could be spending on problems that affect us today. Space exploration can wait until we are technologically advanced enough to derive benefits from the composition of Neptune, to mine Uranus, or to do other science-fiction stuff. Why does the government feel it needs to funnel money to programmes which cannot survive by themselves on a commericial basis? There is probably a reason why they are financial black holes -- because no one cares. The space programme was started as a propaganda project to beat those heathen commies -- it's quint, outdated, and futile. It needs to be trashed.

Begoner21;11630778']I guess it would depend on any tangible gains that could potentially be had by exploring outer space. Currently, our space programmes are more or less useless relics of the Cold War. There is no economic reason to build expensive probes to search various planets -- I really don't care if Pluto's core is made of 23% frozen nitrogen -- it's not going to have any impact on my life or anybody else's. I don't want to spend my tax money to fund such a waste of money. If it cannot help us in any practical way, then it is of no use to us. There are plenty of problems here on Earth already -- no need to look to the cosmos for more. Instead of spending on space, we could be spending on problems that affect us today. Space exploration can wait until we are technologically advanced enough to derive benefits from the composition of Neptune, to mine Uranus, or to do other science-fiction stuff. Why does the government feel it needs to funnel money to programmes which cannot survive by themselves on a commericial basis? There is probably a reason why they are financial black holes -- because no one cares. The space programme was started as a propaganda project to beat those heathen commies -- it's quint, outdated, and futile. It needs to be trashed.
And how are we going to get that advanced without funding space exploration?:confused:
The benefits of exploration of any kind are not necessarily tangible (although they can be - like rare metals, or infinite solar power), but are often knowledge, experience, ideas. Many of the technological advances of the late 20th C can be traced to the research effort put into the space race. It may have started as a propaganda excercise, but the benefits were far more than just a flag on another rock.

Begoner21;11630778']I guess it would depend on any tangible gains that could potentially be had by exploring outer space. Currently, our space programmes are more or less useless relics of the Cold War. There is no economic reason to build expensive probes to search various planets -- I really don't care if Pluto's core is made of 23% frozen nitrogen -- it's not going to have any impact on my life or anybody else's. I don't want to spend my tax money to fund such a waste of money. If it cannot help us in any practical way, then it is of no use to us. There are plenty of problems here on Earth already -- no need to look to the cosmos for more. Instead of spending on space, we could be spending on problems that affect us today. Space exploration can wait until we are technologically advanced enough to derive benefits from the composition of Neptune, to mine Uranus, or to do other science-fiction stuff. Why does the government feel it needs to funnel money to programmes which cannot survive by themselves on a commericial basis? There is probably a reason why they are financial black holes -- because no one cares. The space programme was started as a propaganda project to beat those heathen commies -- it's quint, outdated, and futile. It needs to be trashed.

Surely you don't mean that the only reason to explore the universe is so we can rape another planet's resources? Have you not learned from where that's got us with Earth?

This is really a simple question, should governments on this planet continue funding towards Space Exploration?

My opinion is that we should increase funding. While it may take well over a century for great benefits to pay off, it is still worth it.

Space exploration can lead to great collaborations between various governments. (See ISS).

I just want to see other views on this topic.

No, governments should not increase funding. They should concentrate on what's more important for a government to do.

Private industry on the other hand...they should completely take over all space-related activities. They can do it much more efficiently, cost-effectively, and all that jazz than a government bureacracy ever could.

I'm of two minds.

On one hand, I think we've been getting practically nowhere in the past with it, that it is evidently fuelled by a desire to abuse new resources rather than try to fix our current system and that it is a relic of a period of time that we should really stop rewarding people for, and that it is the development and expansion of virtual worlds that we would be best focusing on.

On the other, I find the notion of blasting certain people into space rather appealing; particularly those keen on continuing to use as much in the way of resources as possible. It would make repairing things here on earth significantly easier.

And how are we going to get that advanced without funding space exploration?:confused:

I mean that we could fund research into technologies that could lead to more efficient spacecraft, but we should not actually build the spacecraft or build probes to gather data from other planets. These things are a waste of money right now. However, in the future, when we have a clear, rational goal in mind, then we can proceed to build an ad hoc spacecraft to achieve that goal. Right now we are just aggregating data, but we do not have any sort of plan as to what to do with the data. Right now, we're sending money down a black hole.

The benefits of exploration of any kind are not necessarily tangible (although they can be - like rare metals, or infinite solar power), but are often knowledge, experience, ideas. Many of the technological advances of the late 20th C can be traced to the research effort put into the space race. It may have started as a propaganda excercise, but the benefits were far more than just a flag on another rock.

Did we gain anything tangible from putting man on the moon? No, it was purely for propaganda purposes -- illogical and pointless, but appealing to national pride. The same thing is true for much of our other space programmes. They do not lead to technological advances; they just tell us that a galaxy miles and miles away has a total of 88909 stars. Research efforts that were put into the space race and inadvertently led to other breakthroughs could instead be solely applied to practical purposes. We shouldn't spend money on something hoping to make important discoveries by accident, and space technology that was adapted for personal use was developed entirely by accident. And I don't care much for "knowledge" of what's in outer space any more than I care for "knowledge" of what the trillionth digit of pi is. If it doesn't affect me or the world in any tangible sense, it's useless. Space exploration falls into that category.

Surely you don't mean that the only reason to explore the universe is so we can rape another planet's resources? Have you not learned from where that's got us with Earth?

Can you suggest a better reason to explore the universe? What possible point could there be in exploring chunks of rock billions of miles away if we can't use them to serve a practical purpose? Do we just see them, stick a flag on them, and go back home? That would be completely pointless -- resource mining is the only possible good thing that can come out of space exploration.

Begoner21;11630910']I mean that we could fund research into technologies that could lead to more efficient spacecraft, but we should not actually build the spacecraft or build probes to gather data from other planets. These things are a waste of money right now. However, in the future, when we have a clear, rational goal in mind, then we can proceed to build an ad hoc spacecraft to achieve that goal. Right now we are just aggregating data, but we do not have any sort of plan as to what to do with the data. Right now, we're sending money down a black hole.
If we refrain from building anything until we know exactly what we are buliding nothing would ever get built. Modern spacecraft require information about their target planet to know what they've got to do to get there. They also require trials, testing, research, prototypes. Building and developing spacecraft is a scientific process - experiment, observe, refine, repeat. You could apply your logic to designing an airplane. According to you there is no point in building anything - no wind tunnel, no mock up, no technology demonstrator, no training simulator nothing. By this logic, we'd still be in a cave, working out what to do with fire.

Did we gain anything tangible from putting man on the moon? No, it was purely for propaganda purposes -- illogical and pointless, but appealing to national pride. The same thing is true for much of our other space programmes. They do not lead to technological advances; they just tell us that a galaxy miles and miles away has a total of 88909 stars. Research efforts that were put into the space race and inadvertently led to other breakthroughs could instead be solely applied to practical purposes. We shouldn't spend money on something hoping to make important discoveries by accident, and space technology that was adapted for personal use was developed entirely by accident. And I don't care much for "knowledge" of what's in outer space any more than I care for "knowledge" of what the trillionth digit of pi is. If it doesn't affect me or the world in any tangible sense, it's useless. Space exploration falls into that category.
Indirect effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Advances_in_technology_and_education
Just because you don't see the effects, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Ah that's pretty funky - although some of the suggested methods are fairly wishy-washy, some of them seemed at least plausible. I certainly hope at least one of them is right - space exploration on the scale made possible by FTL would be... wow.



Not to the moon - just into space, far enough from the Earth so that launching a craft would be all but effortless. In fact, you could even use the Earth's rotation from that point to sling the craft out in the desired direction, which would be pretty cool.

Einstein himself never dismissed FTL travel. People just have said that his theory implies it is impossible. Either way, we have no idea what will be possible after a century of heavy scale research.

As for a space elevator for launching ships, if that could be built, it would be amazing. I still think that we will more likely end up with small shuttles taking us to the moon where the craft with longer destinations will leave from. Even at an altitude of 9000 km, the escape velocity of earth is much greater than the moon's. It would therefore make more sense to still have a main base at the moon.

If we refrain from building anything until we know exactly what we are buliding nothing would ever get built. Modern spacecraft require information about their target planet to know what they've got to do to get there. They also require trials, testing, research, prototypes. Building and developing spacecraft is a scientific process - experiment, observe, refine, repeat. You could apply your logic to designing an airplane. According to you there is no point in building anything - no wind tunnel, no mock up, no technology demonstrator, no training simulator nothing. By this logic, we'd still be in a cave, working out what to do with fire.

No, I said we should refrain from building anything until we have a goal in mind which the thing we are building is meant to achieve. We shouldn't build probes just to see what the mineral composition of a certain planet is if we're never going to use the data we have acquired to do anything constructive. It's like saying, "let's calculate pi to 100000 digits." Then, after finding the 100000th digit, saying "alright, that's cool, but we're never going to use the 100000th digit of pi for anything." My point isn't that we should not build systems to allow us to get to a target planet, but that we shouldn't want to get to the target planet at all, and funding a mission to get to that planet would be a waste of money until we actually have a reason for wanting to get to the target planet. If we find that moon rocks cure cancer, then yeah, we should research the technology required to mine those rocks. But until then, it would be wasting money to fund such a project. My logic cannot be applied to designing an airplane -- the purpose of creating an airplane was to create a flying machine which could be refined for a plethora of uses, including transportation and warfare. Those are immediate goals which could be achieved by building an airplane, and they are tangible goals. There does need to be research to try to develop technology to counter-act the problems that are currently plaguing us, but we shouldn't divert funding to areas that do not help human-kind in any way. We should apply the scientific method to fire to see if it can keep us warm in the winter, but we shouldn't set things on fire to see how long it takes to burn. One activity is producting while the other is counter-productive.

Indirect effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race#Advances_in_technology_and_education
Just because you don't see the effects, doesn't mean they aren't there.

If we had spent more money on our school system to begin with, then those same results could have been achieved. There is nothing for which the Space Race was necessary catalyst for the invention. There are only various fields whose funding was increased due to the Space Race, resulting in various new technologies. Without the Space Race, the same thing would have happened if we invested more money in those fields. The lesson is to invest money in such fields before it is a necessity of national pride.

Begoner21;11631005']No, I said we should refrain from building anything until we have a goal in mind which the thing we are building is meant to achieve. We shouldn't build probes just to see what the mineral composition of a certain planet is if we're never going to use the data we have acquired to do anything constructive. It's like saying, "let's calculate pi to 100000 digits." Then, after finding the 100000th digit, saying "alright, that's cool, but we're never going to use the 100000th digit of pi for anything." My point isn't that we should not build systems to allow us to get to a target planet, but that we shouldn't want to get to the target planet at all, and funding a mission to get to that planet would be a waste of money until we actually have a reason for wanting to get to the target planet. If we find that moon rocks cure cancer, then yeah, we should research the technology required to mine those rocks. But until then, it would be wasting money to fund such a project. My logic cannot be applied to designing an airplane -- the purpose of creating an airplane was to create a flying machine which could be refined for a plethora of uses, including transportation and warfare. Those are immediate goals which could be achieved by building an airplane, and they are tangible goals. There does need to be research to try to develop technology to counter-act the problems that are currently plaguing us, but we shouldn't divert funding to areas that do not help human-kind in any way. We should apply the scientific method to fire to see if it can keep us warm in the winter, but we shouldn't set things on fire to see how long it takes to burn. One activity is producting while the other is counter-productive.



If we had spent more money on our school system to begin with, then those same results could have been achieved. There is nothing for which the Space Race was necessary catalyst for the invention. There are only various fields whose funding was increased due to the Space Race, resulting in various new technologies. Without the Space Race, the same thing would have happened if we invested more money in those fields. The lesson is to invest money in such fields before it is a necessity of national pride.

How are we going to know if the moon rocks cure cancer unless we go to the moon and get some?

Begoner21;11631005']No, I said we should refrain from building anything until we have a goal in mind which the thing we are building is meant to achieve. We shouldn't build probes just to see what the mineral composition of a certain planet is if we're never going to use the data we have acquired to do anything constructive. It's like saying, "let's calculate pi to 100000 digits." Then, after finding the 100000th digit, saying "alright, that's cool, but we're never going to use the 100000th digit of pi for anything." My point isn't that we should not build systems to allow us to get to a target planet, but that we shouldn't want to get to the target planet at all, and funding a mission to get to that planet would be a waste of money until we actually have a reason for wanting to get to the target planet. If we find that moon rocks cure cancer, then yeah, we should research the technology required to mine those rocks. But until then, it would be wasting money to fund such a project. My logic cannot be applied to designing an airplane -- the purpose of creating an airplane was to create a flying machine which could be refined for a plethora of uses, including transportation and warfare. Those are immediate goals which could be achieved by building an airplane, and they are tangible goals. There does need to be research to try to develop technology to counter-act the problems that are currently plaguing us, but we shouldn't divert funding to areas that do not help human-kind in any way. We should apply the scientific method to fire to see if it can keep us warm in the winter, but we shouldn't set things on fire to see how long it takes to burn. One activity is producting while the other is counter-productive.



If we had spent more money on our school system to begin with, then those same results could have been achieved. There is nothing for which the Space Race was necessary catalyst for the invention. There are only various fields whose funding was increased due to the Space Race, resulting in various new technologies. Without the Space Race, the same thing would have happened if we invested more money in those fields. The lesson is to invest money in such fields before it is a necessity of national pride.

How exactly is one meant to find out whether or not moon rocks cure cancer if we don't fund expeditions to get there and mine them and bring them back? The same applies to other planets - we don't know what benefits they will give us until we send something there to find out. What is that probe they sent to Titan discovers vast deposits of oil/gold/whatever beneath the cloud cover? How else would we have found out about it?

Oh and as for the reason for exploring the universe... what reason was there for climbing Everest? For reaching the poles? None besides that they are there - it is a challenge to be met and overcome. There is more to the world than material gain.

How are we going to know if the moon rocks cure cancer unless we go to the moon and get some?

I agree, that was a terrible example. I think we can be fairly certain that they don't cure cancer. The only thing that we can gain from space exploration would be resources that could be mined, so it's a moot point whether we should continue sending probes to gather data.

How are we going to know if the moon rocks cure cancer unless we go to the moon and get some?

Snap :D

Begoner21;11631039']I agree, that was a terrible example. I think we can be fairly certain that they don't cure cancer. The only thing that we can gain from space exploration would be resources that could be mined, so it's a moot point whether we should continue sending probes to gather data.

I'll disagree with you there, for reasons already stated.

There is more to the world than material gain.

What an excellent philosophy by which to run a government. Well, who cares that we're just wasting money? After all, there's more to the world than money. Let's spend billions of dollars building an 100-foot ice sculpture in Antartica! Let's invest in buying hundreds of millions of fireworks that we'll set off on December 31st! Won't it be grand? Perhaps we can build million-dollar bridges in Alaska from nowhere to nowhere: population 50. The point of a government is to judiciously fund enterprizes that are good for the populace. Space exploration does not fit the bill at all. And it's a moot point whether or not we find oil on Titan because we don't have the technology to extract it yet. Once we can build probes to go to planets cheaply, then it's alright to explore for the sake of exploring. But if it costs millions of dollars, it's not Monopoly money any more.

I agree we need a set goal. I think setting a goal to be on Mars at a certain date or send a craft out of the solar system is something we should be doing. That will allow multiple nations to work together in achieving that set goal.

Begoner21;11631057']What an excellent philosophy by which to run a government. Well, who cares that we're just wasting money? After all, there's more to the world than money. Let's spend billions of dollars building an 100-foot ice sculpture in Antartica! Let's invest in buying hundreds of millions of fireworks that we'll set off on December 31st! Won't it be grand? Perhaps we can build million-dollar bridges in Alaska from nowhere to nowhere: population 50. The point of a government is to judiciously fund enterprizes that are good for the populace. Space exploration does not fit the bill at all. And it's a moot point whether or not we find oil on Titan because we don't have the technology to extract it yet. Once we can build probes to go to planets cheaply, then it's alright to explore for the sake of exploring. But if it costs millions of dollars, it's not Monopoly money any more.

But it costs millions of dollars to build the probes that will allow us to build the probes that will allow us to go to Titan cheaply.

In response to many of the posts here:

What if back in 1500 we had this...

"I'm sorry Captain but we really can't pay for your trip. We have no idea if there are any resources out there and if there are it will not be cost efficient to bring them over here. We'll just have to stop all voyages to the new world."

Begoner21;11631057']What an excellent philosophy by which to run a government. Well, who cares that we're just wasting money? After all, there's more to the world than money. Let's spend billions of dollars building an 100-foot ice sculpture in Antartica! Let's invest in buying hundreds of millions of fireworks that we'll set off on December 31st! Won't it be grand? Perhaps we can build million-dollar bridges in Alaska from nowhere to nowhere: population 50. The point of a government is to judiciously fund enterprizes that are good for the populace. Space exploration does not fit the bill at all. And it's a moot point whether or not we find oil on Titan because we don't have the technology to extract it yet. Once we can build probes to go to planets cheaply, then it's alright to explore for the sake of exploring. But if it costs millions of dollars, it's not Monopoly money any more.

If there were nothing more to running the government than money then what purpose would there be behind the upkeep of a fair judicial system?

Anyways, thats slightly beside my point. The difference between ice sculptures in Antarctica and bridges and in Alaska and such and space exploration is that the latter does actually benefit humanity - it adds to our knowledge of the universe. Science, its advancement and the gaining of knowledge is an end in itself, and the fact that it has material benefits os an obvious bonus.

As for the Titan example, you're contradicting yourself. You say we don't have the technology to extract oil from Titan, and without knowledge of its existence we have no incentive to gain such technology. The only thing that would prompt such developments would be certain knowledge of its existence, which we wouldn't have if we didn't send probes there.

So should we send a probe to Titan first, then develop technology to extract the oil we hypothetically find there? Or should develop the tech, then send the probe - what if we don't find it? By your reasoning you seem to be saying that we should go with the latter option, which is clearly, well, foolish.

The more we find out about the universe, the more it could be exploited for material gain. But the only way to do that is to send out exploration probes and such, and to do it to any significant effect requires research, which in turn requires funding.

In response to many of the posts here:

What if back in 1500 we had this...

"I'm sorry Captain but we really can't pay for your trip. We have no idea if there are any resources out there and if there are it will not be cost efficient to bring them over here. We'll just have to stop all voyages to the new world."

What are you talking about? The New World was extremely profitable because the resources over there could easily be brought back to England or Spain via ship. However, it is impractical to bring back oil or gold from a foreign planet via spacecraft. Naval ships are made much more cheaply than spaceships.

As for the Titan example, you're contradicting yourself. You say we don't have the technology to extract oil from Titan, and without knowledge of its existence we have no incentive to gain such technology. The only thing that would prompt such developments would be certain knowledge of its existence, which we wouldn't have if we didn't send probes there.

No, I'm saying we should use a cost-benefit analysis before sending any probe to any planet. Currently, the cost of the probe is in the area of several million dollars. The chance of discovering oil on any given planet or moon is miniscule. The chance of the voyage being profitable is extremely small -- a smaller chance than winning the lottery. I wouldn't approve if our government spent millions of dollars on lotteries as a method to gain money. Similarly, I do not approve of the government spending money to finance a search for resources that are most likely not going to be there and would be unextractable in the eventuality that they are there. I propose to allow private initiatives to look for oil should they so desire (they won't, of course, because they would most likely go bankrupt) or to send probes as long as the gain outweighs the cost. Currently, it does not.

Begoner21;11631217']What are you talking about? The New World was extremely profitable because the resources over there could easily be brought back to England or Spain via ship. However, it is impractical to bring back oil or gold from a foreign planet via spacecraft. Naval ships are made much more cheaply than spaceships.

in the era of sail, it was NOT that good. Ship's took months to travel and were often lost at sea. Your argument that it is impractical to bring them back is quite similar to ones made in that time period.

Yeah, it should be increased. Space program budgets are pretty pathetic right now. USA's is like in 20 billion Euros although it spends 350 billion Euro on army. EU spends like 10 billion while it spends 100 billion on farm subsidies. Even Norway itself can support a decent space program if we werent part of ESA and if we didnt spend hundreds of millions on buying mediterrenean homes for elderly...:rolleyes:

Begoner21;11631241']No, I'm saying we should use a cost-benefit analysis before sending any probe to any planet. Currently, the cost of the probe is in the area of several million dollars. The chance of discovering oil on any given planet or moon is miniscule. The chance of the voyage being profitable is extremely small -- a smaller chance than winning the lottery. I wouldn't approve if our government spent millions of dollars on lotteries as a method to gain money. Similarly, I do not approve of the government spending money to finance a search for resources that are most likely not going to be there and would be unextractable in the eventuality that they are there. I propose to allow private initiatives to look for oil should they so desire (they won't, of course, because they would most likely go bankrupt) or to send probes as long as the gain outweighs the cost. Currently, it does not.

You are thinking in such a small minded manner. USA's scientific expedition to Mars is planned in 2040's. By the time someone builds space crafts big enough to carry industrial drilling equipment and by the time this whole process becomes economical for companies, oil will be reduntant for a long time...

Begoner21;11631005']No, I said we should refrain from building anything until we have a goal in mind which the thing we are building is meant to achieve. We shouldn't build probes just to see what the mineral composition of a certain planet is if we're never going to use the data we have acquired to do anything constructive. It's like saying, "let's calculate pi to 100000 digits." Then, after finding the 100000th digit, saying "alright, that's cool, but we're never going to use the 100000th digit of pi for anything." My point isn't that we should not build systems to allow us to get to a target planet, but that we shouldn't want to get to the target planet at all, and funding a mission to get to that planet would be a waste of money until we actually have a reason for wanting to get to the target planet. If we find that moon rocks cure cancer, then yeah, we should research the technology required to mine those rocks. But until then, it would be wasting money to fund such a project. My logic cannot be applied to designing an airplane -- the purpose of creating an airplane was to create a flying machine which could be refined for a plethora of uses, including transportation and warfare. Those are immediate goals which could be achieved by building an airplane, and they are tangible goals. There does need to be research to try to develop technology to counter-act the problems that are currently plaguing us, but we shouldn't divert funding to areas that do not help human-kind in any way. We should apply the scientific method to fire to see if it can keep us warm in the winter, but we shouldn't set things on fire to see how long it takes to burn. One activity is producting while the other is counter-productive.



If we had spent more money on our school system to begin with, then those same results could have been achieved. There is nothing for which the Space Race was necessary catalyst for the invention. There are only various fields whose funding was increased due to the Space Race, resulting in various new technologies. Without the Space Race, the same thing would have happened if we invested more money in those fields. The lesson is to invest money in such fields before it is a necessity of national pride.

Every mission has a goal, don't say there are no goals.
So, you say that we should stop funding space program to fund other things, like education. Well, I say we stop funding war. How does that sound? Let's all stop buying weapons and fund important things. Of course, that can't be possible because we, humans, suck pretty hard, so sorry I even made this rant, I just had to.

Obviously education needs funding, not only education, but governaments working together fighting world hunger and violence. But those are seperate aspects, there are many excesses that could be stopped and are indeed useless and no one rants about that.

Space exploration is crucial to our technological development and nevertheless, the satisfaction of our human curiosity, of what's beyond.
Pure knowledge.

Get the government out of the nationalistic prideful astronaut killing business (imagine if the airline industry killed 2% of their crew and passengers per flight - that's roughly the fatality rate for government operated space programs) and allow free enterprise to carry it out in a safe and sane fashion.

All that being said, we must get out there if we, as a species, are to survive in the long run. As RAH wisely said, "Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in."

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, yeah we should continue to fund space exploration, but let's make sure that we don't forget to invest in our less fortunate brothers and sisters here on earth.

Oh yea! A racist poem in support of the criminal classes (ie the government) throwing money down one rat hole instead of another.

No, governments should not increase funding. They should concentrate on what's more important for a government to do.

Private industry on the other hand...they should completely take over all space-related activities. They can do it much more efficiently, cost-effectively, and all that jazz than a government bureacracy ever could.

Bingo. AQnd that's not to mention more safely.

Begoner21;11631217']it is impractical to bring back oil or gold from a foreign planet via spacecraft

Okay, this is in fact the very first time I've read the phrase, "foreign planet".

Ever.

Have I ever mentioned that I'll be turning 37 next month?

Of course not. Might as well burn your money.

We humans are far too fragile and short-lived to reap any material benefits from space at all, ever.

Perhaps it is time to move away from government sponsored space exploration and let private companies like Virgin Galactic and others do it. It seems to be moving in that direction now and commercial enterprises are so much more efficient than bloated government bureaucratic is.

yea, just so i can go to the moon on holiday... :eek: my mum thought the same thing 30 years ago :eek:

Can't get to the moon yet, but you can go in space. You can make your reservation here. http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/when.asp

Oh, the price...We are now starting to take reservations and deposit commitments for the first year of operations. The ticket price has been set at US$200,000 and the minimum, fully refundable deposit to secure your spaceship seat is US$20,000.

Of course not. Might as well burn your money.

We humans are far too fragile and short-lived to reap any material benefits from space at all, ever.

These small minded comments explain some of your other positions...

After reading 'Deception Point', I think stepping up space funding is a good idea only because the private sector would be irresponsible in the field.

These small minded comments explain some of your other positions...

You say small-minded, I say, realistic.

After reading 'Deception Point', I think stepping up space funding is a good idea only because the private sector would be irresponsible in the field.

The private sector would never become involved in space exploration. Unlike congress, they can't afford to waist resources.

The private sector would never become involved in space exploration. Unlike congress, they can't afford to waist resources.

So did they say about aeroplanes in early 20th century...

Of course not. Might as well burn your money.

We humans are far too fragile and short-lived to reap any material benefits from space at all, ever.

You say small-minded, I say, realistic.

If Columbus, Magellan, Desoto, et al had been as realistic as you are you wouldn't be "somewhere in the hills of San Antonio." :rolleyes:

The private sector would never become involved in space exploration. Unlike congress, they can't afford to waist resources.

Just in case you missed my earlier post, try this link. http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/whatis.asp And they are not the only company "involved in space exploration." :eek:

If Columbus, Magellan, Desoto, et al had been as realistic as you are you wouldn't be "somewhere in the hills of San Antonio." :rolleyes:

Dont dignify his comments. He's not even realistic. If people like him had his way, there wouldnt be any sattelites and ALL that's revelant to them...

The OP is looking at it completely the wrong way. Government is not the future of space exploration - private industry is. NASA, for example, should be almost completely broken up and privatized, and some portion of the newly free budget allocation should be used to provide interest-free loans and such to budding space companies, and the rest to patch the deficit.

The OP is looking at it completely the wrong way. Government is not the future of space exploration - private industry is. NASA, for example, should be almost completely broken up and privatized, and some portion of the newly free budget allocation should be used to provide interest-free loans and such to budding space companies, and the rest to patch the deficit.

Private industry will give us Space Hotels, Trans-Orbital Flight (New York to Tokyo in thirty minutes!) and captured, mined asteroids for cheap materials.

Governments will colonize Mars.

Hey guess what, the vikings were the first ppl to discover america. Columbus only got the credit because the vikings were unable to survive the cold winter of north america in the canadian area

The OP is looking at it completely the wrong way. Government is not the future of space exploration - private industry is. NASA, for example, should be almost completely broken up and privatized, and some portion of the newly free budget allocation should be used to provide interest-free loans and such to budding space companies, and the rest to patch the deficit.
Next thing you know - you'll be looking up into the sky and seeing a giant Starbucks logo on the moon. The private sector can't be trusted for such vital research. There's no profit for them in that aspect.

So did they say about aeroplanes in early 20th century...
No they didn't. As soon as the Wright Brothers had a working aircraft the government was paying them big bucks to design more.

Space exploration is simply not comparable to any previous endeavor. Human beings, nay, life in general has limits. There is only so much that we can do, and the processes necessary to make space anything viable is not one of them.

It's all fantasy.

The OP is looking at it completely the wrong way. Government is not the future of space exploration - private industry is. NASA, for example, should be almost completely broken up and privatized, and some portion of the newly free budget allocation should be used to provide interest-free loans and such to budding space companies, and the rest to patch the deficit.

Private industry won't go deep into space until they're sure they can make a profit from it--i.e. until they have government assurances that they'll make a lot of money. Dododecapod is right, I believe. Private industry will move into low earth orbital tourist kind of crap in the nearer future, but it'll be up to government to go farther and establish bases anywhere.

Private industry won't go deep into space until they're sure they can make a profit from it--i.e. until they have government assurances that they'll make a lot of money. Dododecapod is right, I believe. Private industry will move into low earth orbital tourist kind of crap in the nearer future, but it'll be up to government to go farther and establish bases anywhere.
Exactly. Like with the Internet, the government has to cross the technological obstacles with resources that the private sector can't spend before the private sector can have a role.

Exactly. Like with the Internet, the government has to cross the technological obstacles with resources that the private sector can't spend before the private sector can have a role.

I think a lot of people fail to realize that the Heinlein story "The Man Who Sold the Moon" was just that--a story. It was an entertaining story by a guy with a bit more of a Libertarian streak than was realistic, but it was a story nonetheless.

This is really a simple question, should governments on this planet continue funding towards Space Exploration?

Definitely.

"The Earth is the cradle of the mind -- but one cannot eternally live in a cradle."

-Tsiolkovsky, Konstantin E.

My opinion is that we should increase funding. While it may take well over a century for great benefits to pay off, it is still worth it.

With state governments, space explorations is a difficult proposition.

Ultimately in national space programs the constraint isn't one of avaliable technology but of funding. Funding controlled but politicians - politicians see the world in terms of "what it does my power/popularity".

Few politcians care about the distant future as it doesn't extend their power or make them more popular now. A failure in space also generates negative publicity for them.

Even JFK's pledge to land humans on the moon is based on one-uping the Soviets.

Space exploration can lead to great collaborations between various governments. (See ISS).

This is such optimistic. Collaboration in space is good public relations or TV-diplomacy. Every country involved in the ISS is talking about completing it but notice how no single country has pledged firm funds towards finishing it?