Recent Mars and upcoming Moon Projects

[Martz]

Can't we ever have a discussion about space technology without the age old "it's not worth the money" line?;( simple fact of the matter is that the expenditure on space research is a miniscule drop in the ocean compared to expenditure on arms and weaponry, and *that* is your main problem. Space research is neither here nor there: the problems of earth are not cause by NASA, they are caused by religion, by social injustice, by religion, by politics, by religion, by racism and fear, by religion... (you get the idea?) eliminate the space program tomorrow, and give *every penny* to.. well, to what? medicine for the third world? the money would be stolen, and used to buy guns.. for birth control, and health programs? not with "jesus" bush in power you don't.. Personally, I think that mars and going back to the moon will open up another technology race, and benefit all of mankind... whilst the troublesome parts of mankind continue trying to klill each other, or persuade us to folow their imaginary friend. It's the assumption that you *cannot* solve the problems of the world until the human population matures a great deal, and there's no point sitting on our hands waiting for it to happen, or worse, pouring money and resources into a neverending chasm whilst we wait!

It's obviously a perception of worth, and what we decide is worthwhile. Ajax asked what we would do without money.. well money is obviously just a convienient way to exchange goods without having to walk your 3 cows down the road to trade it for coffee beans. A Human needs too feed themselves and drink water each day to survive, be heathly and reproduce. I'm not suggesting that we all start growing our own food to live, society depends on each other people to survive these days. We have a wide range of skills between us that we can all take advantage of. Obviously ,

Yes the NASA budget is only a small percentage compared to what is allocated to other areas like "Homeland Defense". But it is enormous compared to foreign aid, which was less than 0.5% of the $1.4 trillion budget. "It is last among the industrialised nations in the amount of distribute per capita".

The logistical problems of AID distrubution past corrupt foreign goverments and its malicia is indeed tricky. This is the challenge that maybe all the cleverest people in the world should be concentrating on to try and fix, in my opinion. I don't have solutions or alternatives for some of the crap I rant on about, I find it personally wastfull to squander money on trivial things for £10-£100. Forgetting about the Foreign policy stuff, blowing a couple of £ million would be disgracefull imo, compared to the amount of suffering which could be reduced, the amount of lives which could be dramatically changed right here in the UK and the US. Instead of just a very select few.

 

[Wintermute]

I guess working in the NHS made me brutally cynical about these things...
even without the complicating factors of highly corrupt governments,
you could pour ANOTHER four billion poiunds a year into the NHS and
make no substantial improvements - It's an absolute money pit, and
you can just keep throwing: there are so many mini-empires, staff on
the take, and ridiculous waste that would make you sick... and it
wouldn't get any better.

As for making lives better? It's my honest opinion that you would burn
the entire space budget in a heartbeat, and no-one would notice the
slightest bit of difference... except, humanity would lose just a little
sparkle, a little magic.

It's a sport of modern journalists to knock the 1950s enthusiasm about
science technology and progress in general, but personally, I think
recapturing something of pride in what we can do, rather than more
mundane goals is a noble thing.

 

[Hector]

Nicely put Wint. Maybe I'm too cynical myself, but I'm basically suspicious of what I see as diversionary tactics. Space exploration basically amounts to flashing lights and is bolstered in the public interest by every sci fi film and series in history. It's a great distraction to wheel out when things are tough. And that's the oldest spin of all.

How about having some pride in changing some things around here? Or maybe people believe that we'll somehow achieve the justice and equal society of Star Trek if we build an Enterprise. If I was a yank I'd be more proud if Bush was impeached and stepped down and a replacement pandered to the masses, who suddenly started to care about ecology, and rejoined the Kyoto gang.

 

[MrMerc]

Bush was impeached and stepped down and a replacement pandered to the masses, who suddenly started to care about ecology, and rejoined the Kyoto gang.

American elections in 10 month's, let's start hoping Bush get's replaced.

 

[Cassius]

New info about it on cnn at 20:00 gmt, bush speaks though

 

[Wintermute]

Two things.. hell yeah to getting rid of Bush: seriously hope he's a one termer, just like his old man.

other one... it took a couple of weeks to find... then the Beeb posted the story!!

Basically, the whole "money would be better spent on stuff here" argument isn't hypothetical - we can see first hand, and compare and contrast:

In 1970, the UK was one of only three space-capable nations. The United States and USSR were developing launch systems, and so was the UK: we launched a sateltite into a polar orbit in 1971:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3388535.stm

Well, here's the thing: the UK DID cancel it's space program, because it was "too expensive"

In contrast, France didn't. It continued to spend money on space research, and as a result now has over a third of the global satelite market, and has basically meant that Europe has a viable launch system...

Anyone want to have a guess which nation has the better health care system?

W.

 

[Lex_Mortis]

Everybody is stating that NASA and their space stuff is just expensive and a cool thing to watch with launches..
And that the only gain is outer space stuff, well I'd like that correct that: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

As you can see they made a lot of stuff possible, you can argue what their goal is.. space or that stuff on the list and that its just a "byproduct" but even so... they still made it all possible.
So I think its worth the money.. not just for cool outer space stuff but also for more good things here on earth.

Plus a nice quote from that same site:

Out of a $1.5 trillion budget, less than 1% is spent on the entire space program! It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. Besides the obvious jobs created in the aerospace industry, thousands more are created by many other companies applying NASA technology in nonspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space technology benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise all boats.

 

[jwer_NL]

yeah well, with the money mr. Bush is ready to stick into the project he won't get much higher then the top of the empire state building

 

[Ice]

Anyway as for going to other planets before "sorting ours" as you say. The destiny of our Solar system is this - the Sun will age and as it does it will become a Red Giant Star the radius of which will become so large as to engulf even past the distance of Earths Orbit from the Sun now, destroying our planet. That's if we haven't been fucked by a asteriod/meteor before then (for which Nuclear weapons will be our best defence - and I bet ur against atomic power/weapons too!)

If humans are to survive in the long run we must develop powerful weapons and we must be able to move to other planets.

i honestly think humans would do better on another planet, since probably only "intelligent" people would have the possibility to go there. it would be a lot different from how the earth is build up, imo.

 

[Hector]

i honestly think humans would do better on another planet, since probably only "intelligent" people would have the possibility to go there. it would be a lot different from how the earth is build up, imo.

[restrained mode=on]

Why would only "intelligent" people go there? And why the quotation marks around intelligent? Don't you think that the people with the most power and money would get to go if they thought it was a better life? And what section of the world's population do you think is causing all these problems that we're so desperate to fly away from?

 

[thePROPHET!]

I haven´t read all of your money blubbering, just wanted to add one thing:

Question: Why is mankind going to build a Moon Base and trying to get themselves on Mars?

Simple Answer: Because mankind can.

 

[Ice]

who do you think they send first - scientists or some poor bum they will send scientists and some workers ( 50 gold units to build a worker and he can build a house for 100 wood units then ), and they tend to be more carefull with the nature than the average young man that's partying and throwing around his trash every weekend, for example
and what do you think (if it comes to that) will they build up? some lousy hood with paper houses or houses with the newest technology etc?

people who destroy the nature wouldn't fit in there and they would most likely not be tolerated. that is all my opinion, but it's logical and i hope you can see the reason now

 

[Hector]

who do you think they send first - scientists or some poor bum they will send scientists and some workers ( 50 gold units to build a worker and he can build a house for 100 wood units then ), and they tend to be more carefull with the nature than the average young man that's partying and throwing around his trash every weekend, for example
and what do you think (if it comes to that) will they build up? some lousy hood with paper houses or houses with the newest technology etc?

people who destroy the nature wouldn't fit in there and they would most likely not be tolerated. that is all my opinion, but it's logical and i hope you can see the reason now

Who do you think has been fucking up this one? Was it a load of partying yobs leaving MacDonalds wrappers and plastic beer glases all over "nature"? Or is it the greenhouse gases choking the atmosphere developed by scientists and perpetuated by corporations for profit? And oil spilled out in to the oceans? And nuclear waste buried in the cheapest hole in the ground?

 

[Rob1000100]

both, you can't say thats worse so it excuses me

 

[Wintermute]

Or is it the greenhouse gases choking the atmosphere developed by scientists and perpetuated by corporations for profit?

Corporations and profit are not dirty words. Hospitals and Schools exist only because of the taxes paid by you and I: we can pay taxes only because we are paid wages: those wages exist only because of business.

to be frank, this sort of attack drives me nuts: what do you want? a human population of 200,000 living in mud huts and going to war with the neighbouring tribe with pointy sticks?

Science has made our planet a much better place. Our children don't die in infancy, we have drusg to treat many diseases, we don't starve to death, Where industry and science have been embraced, life is good. Where native living and religion rule, it's hell on earth.

I happen to think that Human Population is a good thing, and the great majority of worthy, noble and artistic things we have exist only because of industrialisation.

And oil spilled out in to the oceans? And nuclear waste buried in the cheapest hole in the ground?

The material erupted from the Mt Saint Helens volcano during the hundred or so days of it's eruption contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the industrial output of Europe for fifty years.

that's not to belittle the damage that mankind is doing to the planet, but you have to factor in the benefit brought to mankind in making those greenhouse emissions in terms of jobs, health and wealth.

and as for Nuclear waste? well, that's the Green Lobby's dirty little secret isn't it? The single best solution to Global Warming ever devised, yet we can't use it... for the environment?!?!?!? bollox. :p

Nuclear is the cleanest damn power ever produced in volume, and is probably more safe than having a coal fired power sttaion spewing out superfine carcinogenic dust over the surrounding areas...

 

[HUEY]

Hmmmz complicated thread. IMO space is the futre for energie & raw materials & manufacturing. I don't believe in colonisation on a large scale. I figure it's gunnabejust like the oilrigs on the north sea. 2 weeks up in zero gravity & 2 weeks home. The advantages of using zero gravity in manufacturing ( especially mixing plastics / ceramics / metals together) are enormous. Space is the industrial park of the future.

 

[Hector]

Corporations and profit are not dirty words. Hospitals and Schools exist only because of the taxes paid by you and I: we can pay taxes only because we are paid wages: those wages exist only because of business.

At our current level of evolution that is the case. But don't you think it's ironic that while we seem to be striving for the material gains and levels of technology popularised by Star Trek we don't seem as excited about achieving its representation of modern society, including needing such an archaic device as money?

to be frank, this sort of attack drives me nuts: what do you want? a human population of 200,000 living in mud huts and going to war with the neighbouring tribe with pointy sticks?

Calm down, it wasn't an attack, it was a rebuttal. It's ridiculous to attempt to disguise the damage that big business causes and soley focus on the positive aspects. We don't get anywhere in anything by slapping ourselves on the back, we progress by identifying problems and surmounting them.

Science has made our planet a much better place. Our children don't die in infancy, we have drusg to treat many diseases, we don't starve to death, Where industry and science have been embraced, life is good. Where native living and religion rule, it's hell on earth.

This simply has nothing to do with this thread, you've gone off on your own tangent here. BUT while we're here perhaps as a personal exercise you might like to see if you can come up with - let's say 10- items of historical scientific achievement that have actually worked to the detriment of humanity. I reckon I could do it.

I happen to think that Human Population is a good thing, and the great majority of worthy, noble and artistic things we have exist only because of industrialisation.

Pardon?

So we're just wiping out every artistic, philosophical and scientific innovation before the 19th century?

and as for Nuclear waste? well, that's the Green Lobby's dirty little secret isn't it? The single best solution to Global Warming ever devised, yet we can't use it... for the environment?!?!?!? bollox. :p
Nuclear is the cleanest damn power ever produced in volume, and is probably more safe than having a coal fired power sttaion spewing out superfine carcinogenic dust over the surrounding areas...

Well you're discounting the possibility for natural energy sources, I presume you've heard even Ken Livingstone is championing solar powered panels these days. I mean where do you get terms like "best", "cleanest damn power" from? To envision nuclear power (the term "half-life" existed before the game, kids) as the future of our power sources is simply frightening.

I have no idea why you're so gung ho about over-populating the planet and then destroying it in an attempt to fill its ever-gaping maw but I can't relate to it at all. It seems utter insanity to me and bizarre rhetoric seemingly copied from the Sun isn't going to change this uta forum subscriber's mind, no siree bob.

 

[Cutter]

For me the problem lies in the 'option' being investigated costing billions of monies that could be better used sorting out our current problems, thus negating the need for another planet in the first place. If we DID manage to get to another planet it would simply be the same thing all over again. I don't see how we can run away from our problems.

UK Government Spending for 2003: £456 Billion ( From http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5570/5570-25.htm )
UK Government Income for 2003: £428 Billion (Ditto)
UK Government Spending on "Social Protection" for 2003: £133 Billion (Ditto)
UK Government Spending on Science for 2003: £2.15 Billion ( From http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/funding/budget01-04/scibud1.pdf )
UK Annual Deficit for 2003: £28 Billion (Difference between Spending & Income)
UK "Social Protection" Budget lost to fraud (2002-2003): Approx. £3 Billion ( From http://www.nao.gov.uk/pn/03-04/030483.htm )

So, to recap, the UK spends more than it earns. It spends almost a third of its annual income on social security. The social security budget is defrauded to the tune of some £3 Billion a year, which is almost a third as much again as the total annual Science budget for the UK (Space exploration making up a tiny part of that).

Now, to me, that is a shocking return on investment. We spend almost a third of our money trying to make our part of the world better, make sure everyone has a decent standard of living etc etc etc and yet we still have poor people, homeless people, people with not enough to eat. And to cap it off, that budget is defrauded year in, year out, with successive governements, and particularly the current one, giving no indication they even see it as a problem.

I mean, look at that pie chart for fuck sake. Social security spending dwarfs spending on most other things put together. Am I the only one to see that as a problem? If it was being spent on pensions for taxpaying workers, and the genuinely needy & helpless, I wouldn't see that as a problem. But it isn't.

And yet people still have the fucking gall to say we spend too much on "flights of fancy" like space research and science. I know what I consider to be the real waste of money, and it sure as hell isn't space exploration and research!

Space travel with chemical propulsion ius as good as it's going to get, in the past 30 years essentially no progress ahs been made.

Guess everyone has been missing all the research into nuclear and ion drive propulsion then?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03421_passes_test.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project070.html
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000143.html
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_nuclear_020205.html

If we haven't developed better forms of propulsion than chemical rockets for so long, maybe its because money is being poured into stuff like social security instead, where sums greater than the science budget are lost to fraud each year?

 

[jwer_NL]

wtf thur and winter defending the same opinion?

where's this world going to

 

[Hector]

Craziness indeed. AFAIK no one is allowed to agree with Thur without having the comedy "X agreeing with Thur? Inconceivable!** levelled at them

** (c) Princess Bride

But Thur is right: the social security system has been woefully under pressure for a long time. And yet we have made massive inroads into solving unemployment! It must be all these dodgers, certainly not the 'mismanagement' of statisitcs that would compromise the government's figures on unemployment if proven to have no real basis.

We need more quangos. That much is self-perpetuating^H^H^Hevident.