| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Butterfly wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I'd like to add a #5 to Mith's list:
It's about setting a goal for the human race that requires the best and brightest to strive to create new and better technology. It's about developing your potential. It's about reaching for the stars. |
Shall we eradicate poverty and cure cancer first? Nobody has convinced me yet, that this isn't a diabolical waste of money. One Iraq War to date = six years Nasa budget. JESUS are Nasa spending THAT much??? |
Red:
If we could redistribute some of Earth's population onto other heavenly bodies, then that would mean less population on Earth, which would put less stress on Earth's ecosystem. Surely that would help decrease poverty, wouldn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think living permanently on Moon is impossible due to gravity difference.
In order for human or any living being from Earth to maintain health and normal physiology, you need earth's gravity. No telling what you'll become or look like if you lived there permanently.
For economic reasons (for resources, etc), I think it's very feasible. Many countries are planning permanent bases on Moon for that very purpose. I also foresee countries fighting(war) over some nice properties with lots of desired resources from the Moon. Kinda like "Star Wars". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Butterfly wrote: |
| Can anyone tell me what for? It seems like an awful waste of money to me - what use is it? |
It appeals to the general public's romanticized image of space exploration, and therefore it allows the government to divert billions of taxpayer's money to corporations that have funded their electoral campaigns long after they've retired from office or lost the elections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
this is a lame appeal to authority but -
i've spoken to a few physics professors and lectures who would find space exploration intellectually and professionally fulfilling, but ultimately consider it wasteful of money and so therefore unnecessary. although i'm not going to go through the list of 'spinoffs', i trust the intelligence of these physicists whose own self-interest would surely have already sought out justifications, were they to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why the quotes around the word spinoffs?
As for the professors, I'm curious as to whether they think space exploration itself is a waste of money or whether they believe sending humans out to do it is. Personally I think everything should be done robotically until we obtain the holy grail, the discovery of another planet with life. Each time the Shuttle goes up ($450 million) we could have sent another rover to Mars, the same rovers that have been there for two years now and are bringing in fantastic results.
This is what we need more of at the moment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Russia might be in too, good news:
article
| Quote: |
Moscow � Rivals for lunar conquest four decades ago, Russia hopes to join the U.S. moon exploration program with technology and know-how, a Russian space agency spokesman said Thursday.
Russia was conducting talks with NASA and voiced hope that a deal could be reached within months, said the spokesman, Igor Panarin.
�We want the agreement to reflect Russia's status as a great space power,� he told The Associated Press, adding that Russia plans to contribute technology rather than money to NASA's project.
NASA said Monday that it would send a four-astronaut crew to the moon in 2020 and set up an international base camp on one of the moon's poles that would be permanently staffed by 2024.
Mr. Panarin said the agreement with NASA could be modelled on Russia's deal with the European Space Agency, which envisages launches of commercial satellites by Russian Soyuz rockets from France's Kourou launch pad in French Guyana starting in 2008. Under that deal, Russia would provide booster rockets and the ESA would fund launch pad upgrades.
�We could use a similar approach in the moon project,� Mr. Panarin said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edit
Last edited by Butterfly on Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| As for the professors, I'm curious as to whether they think space exploration itself is a waste of money or whether they believe sending humans out to do it is. |
well, this was at the time of the first mars rover so i guess they're dirty on the robots, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
A wise quote from another board:
| Quote: |
It would take billions to run a lunar base to be sure. This is the pitfall in the whole plan. It becomes very difficult to justify to a public conditioned by media and politicians with no vested interest in human spaceflight, to believe that we could save the world if we just cut NASAs budget.
The example being:
We can better spend money spent on NASA right here on earth for the people in need.
A noble but flawed argument. The reason is that we already cut NASA budgets in the early 1970s for the same reason and what we got instead of more help for needy people...the double digit inflation years of the late 1970s. The $500 B dollar Reagan era S&L scandal. Deficit spending through the 1970s, 1980s, and early to mid 1990s. We had a few budget surplus years in the late 1990s but the anti human spaceflight argument could still be heard. Now we have the annual $400 B dollar deficits and $100 plus B dollars we spend on Iraq.
A single year of deficits is at least as much as what we have spent on NASA since its 1958 inception...imagine that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It appeals to the general public's romanticized image of space exploration, and therefore it allows the government to divert billions of taxpayer's money to corporations that have funded their electoral campaigns long after they've retired from office or lost the elections. |
Care to list some companies profiting off what your calling the NASA pork barrel? Whose campaigns are they contributing to?
Plus, that amount of money is a joke compared to what goes on with defense spending and the industry that supports it.
#6 Profit- Someone already mentioned it, but they didn't number it . 
Drilling asteroids for mineral resources, precision-crafting in zero-gravity or light gravity, bleu cheese...
Seriously, space exploration is not unlike the exploration that brought us to the New World.
What some of you are saying is akin to someone 700 years ago saying we shouldn't waste our money exploring the ocean.
#7 Practice- If we want to go further, the skills/tech we develop for moon missions will help make later efforts to travel elsewhere more successful.
Again, suppose we just sent up Sputnik and the Mercury missions, then said, OK, been to space. Not gonna blow money to go back. Look at the advancement from rocketry to the space shuttle. Consider all of the uses satellites provide.
That's all because some crooked politician back in the 60s was trying to siphon campaign donations through NASA.  Good on him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryst Helmut
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Location: In search of the elusive signature...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a little something not directly related-
I live right by Kennedy Space Center (Florida, USA) and saw the 1st night launch in 4+ years last night.
Absolutely BREATHTAKING! Goosebumps galore, I say. Go NASA!! <Especially since several of my paying students are NASA engineers so I need their money!  >
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=69
!Shoosh,
Ryst |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
If we could redistribute some of Earth's population onto other heavenly bodies, then that would mean less population on Earth, which would put less stress on Earth's ecosystem. Surely that would help decrease poverty, wouldn't it? |
In 1940 there were about 1.5 billion on earth, in 1970, about 3 billion and in 2000 about 6 billion. This means we are doubling every 30 years.
In 350 years we get about 1 m squared each (that is 9 square feet or 3 feet by 3 feet for the metrically challenged).
in the 1960's Asimov used an estimation of the mass of the universe and the doubling rate to estimate it would take 3500 years to have so many people that the entire mass of the universe would have to be converted to people to sustain it.
While these scenarios are obviously impossible, they do indicate that heading to space will not solve problems generated by population growth. Only slowing population growth will do so.
However, I think the moon base a very good idea. We need to leave the cradle..... I also think we should stop wasting money on crap. <insert your own definition of crap here>.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Low gravity physical therapy spas on the moon.
Low gravity retirement resorts on the moon. Bingo!!!
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryst Helmut
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Location: In search of the elusive signature...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
However, I think the moon base a very good idea. We need to leave the cradle..... I also think we should stop wasting money on crap. <insert your own definition of crap here>.
h |
<soju>
<Korean beer>
<conspiracy theorists>
<me>
!Shoosh,
Ryst |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
If we could redistribute some of Earth's population onto other heavenly bodies, then that would mean less population on Earth, which would put less stress on Earth's ecosystem. Surely that would help decrease poverty, wouldn't it? |
In 1940 there were about 1.5 billion on earth, in 1970, about 3 billion and in 2000 about 6 billion. This means we are doubling every 30 years.
In 350 years we get about 1 m squared each (that is 9 square feet or 3 feet by 3 feet for the metrically challenged).
in the 1960's Asimov used an estimation of the mass of the universe and the doubling rate to estimate it would take 3500 years to have so many people that the entire mass of the universe would have to be converted to people to sustain it.
While these scenarios are obviously impossible, they do indicate that heading to space will not solve problems generated by population growth. Only slowing population growth will do so.
However, I think the moon base a very good idea. We need to leave the cradle..... I also think we should stop wasting money on crap. <insert your own definition of crap here>.
h |
Apparently the world population should eventually peak at about 12 billion and then stay there. I don't remember where I read that.
The best way to slow down population growth is to have a good economy and plenty of opportunities so that people are more inclined to wait a few more years before they get married and settle down. It's okay because even if the population of a country slows, per capita effectiveness goes up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
