Phoenix Lander discovers dirt on Mars

[happy_Alex]

The rock was just an example. That rock simply could not be found on Earth, and it provides answers about how the Earth was formed, as well as where the moon came from - a question we still don't really know the answer to today.

And a worthy scienticfic question, but the answer, or partial answer it would seem, does not justify the money spent on it IMHO.

It also wasn't just about the moon itself, it was about national prestige. This was a time when America seemed to be loosing to the Soviets, where the moon landing was a huge morale boost to the country, and something to believe in.

It also spurred materials development, which have bled into everyday life. Not to mention employing a great number of people in Aerospace companies - regardless of the ethics behind it, a war industry is fantastic for the economy.

And lets not forget (personal sort of opinion here) what the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo projects were all about: Missile Reasearch. They provided the government a very positive way to develop rockets for ICBMs that kept the world safe (or so people say). Today that experience has developed into cruise missiles and UAVs, which indirectly save soldiers lives everyday.

Not to mention Apollo Projects, which was all about practical returns.

I can see the military spin-offs ICBMs etc, in fact Britains own nuclear program had one until 'we' decided to buy them of the Americans, losing our independant deternet and foreigh policy forever in the process. We spent the money on concord instead. Space programa are about projecting power over the rest of the world, which is why aspiring powers seek to follow them.


No-one here has yet presented anything other than generalisations regarding the value of these spin offs.

Technological advances don't come out of the blue, they are extrapolated from precedents. ie meaning what reason do we have to beleive they would not have been invented anyway, when the need arose.

Don't get me wrong, i'm no luddite, vorsprung durch technic and all that, but these technologies could have been developed in other contexts.

Carl Sagan said something in Cosmos -- I'd have to chase down the entire quote, but it ends with, "...as if nuclear war were practical!"

He was referring to the question of whether it's more practical to spend billions of dollars on ways to keep killing each other or billions of dollars on scientific research that could help the human race survive its next evolutionary crisis: what do we do when Earth becomes unfit for humans? Do we just lay down and die because we spent the money on the latest computer system for guided missiles and other weapons? Or do we take off for other worlds and have a chance to survive and grow as a species? 'Cause once we're gone, there won't ever be any more, anywhere, ever again. Everything that we've ever done and learned and thought important will vanish. Our existence will have become truly pointless.

And there's no incompatibility between oceanic research and space research. Each can benefit the other.

A long way away might be what? 200 years. We've got a 25-50 year outlook for Mars colonization?

Without necessity there is no invention. Who knows? Maybe once we actually find a use or need for warp drive beyond speculative exploration, we'll start to invent it. For now we can't even colonize a planet successfully... baby steps...

These are indeed distant goals, and this is why we need to get started now. They aren't getting any closer, and our ability to wipe out the planet is (insurance argument).

NASA's budget is about $17bn. $57/capita/year. Compared with other budgets, it's miniscule. Out of the $2.77tr US federal budget, it's about six tenths of a percent. Peanuts. And then realize that the Mars projects are just a slice of this abysmal budget.

When did it become a given that space colonization is our next stage? Let's deal with the problems we have now. It costs alot less to provide sanitation and housing for people on earth than it does to relocate them to habitation domes on Mars, and i suspect this will always be the case.

Do you have any idea how many things you're using today were invented because of the space program?

I bet you would've preferred a gas tax holiday...

Actually, no I don't. Do you? You know, you are the last person on this forum who I thought would defend public sector money being used in this way. What ever happened to the free market leading inovation and being the driving force for technological change?

You Americans don't seem to believe in spending money on socialised health-care, but rush to defend the space-program. Go figure...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You Americans don't seem to believe in spending money on socialised health-care, but rush to defend the space-program. Go figure...

Ah yes, country matters.

Anyways, what is the difference in cost between a space program and socialized health care?

 

[DNK]

When did it become a given that space colonization is our next stage? Let's deal with the problems we have now. It costs alot less to provide sanitation and housing for people on earth than it does to relocate them to habitation domes on Mars, and i suspect this will always be the case.

Eventual stage.

You aren't responding to the fact that NASA's budget is peanuts. In fact, calling it such is an insult to the things. If we didn't have NASA, we'd just have a small dip in taxes. I guarantee that money wouldn't be going anywhere else, save to fight wars.

The point is that Mars, once terraformed, will be a vast resource/fppd supply, and capable of supporting a couple billion probably. It would be nice to depopulate this planet. Imo, it's already overpopulated.

This "lets deal with the problems we have now" argument that I regularly hear ignores how incredibly small the budget is compared to the problems it's supposed to deal with.

We spend an extremely small amount of our resources on space exploration. Why not? You also ignored all the discoveries that could be made also. I mean, they could be huge to numerous scientific field. You have to remember that our perspective is extremely biased, being based on a single planet.

 

[Mirc]

The point is that Mars, once terraformed, will be a vast resource/fppd supply, and capable of supporting a couple billion probably. It would be nice to depopulate this planet. Imo, it's already overpopulated.

That's very, very wishful thinking. First problem: colonizing Mars would not, under any circumstances, depopulate the Earth at all, unless the Earth would be destroyed and Mars would be our only place to live in. It would just create a lower population place, which would soon grow to be equally overpopulated as the Earth. While that's not a bad thing, it's not going to help with our overpopulation in any shape or form. Second problem, terraforming would cost a lot more than what the whole world is producing right now in a given amount of time. Terraforming a whole planet is at least centuries away from now.

 

[DNK]

Like I said, we'll never get there if we just sit put.

We're unlikely to explode in population on Mars. History has shown that once societies reach a certain level of material wellbeing, they stop growing or start shrinking. The US is one of the few exceptions to this rule. The human population is likely to level off around 9 billion, give or take a couple. How cramped is the planet with 6 billion? What is the current food situation? We haven't much room left to expand into without using up lots of resources to make that land useful.

By the time Mars is terraformed, most of the Earth would likely be developed to the point of having overcome population growth. In fact, that's the trend right now.

It's long term. You put a few pennies away each day, and 200 years later you're a millionaire. Basic idea.

Who knows how much terraforming would cost. It's outside our abilities right now, outside our knowledge base.

 

[El_Machinae]

If we keep on investing spare cash in merely increasing our standard of living (whether in social projects, or just new shiny toys) then eventually we'll run out of resources: we're over consuming the planet and we're overpopulating the planet.

This means that we need exploration, not only for the science but for the inspiration. We're going to be looking at the deep ocean, at Mars, at asteroids, at the Moon, etc. All of these areas are opportunities for future wealth.

I'm all for getting everyone as rich as possible, but to do that, you need to have expanded horizons. Get the probes out there, inspire a generation, let people know what's out there. Because with information and inspiration we get really good ideas.

And remember, a machine probe costs about 1/100th the amount it costs a person to do the same science. We're getting really good value for that money.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We'd still be cavemen if we didn't push any limits.

We'd still be in the trees, never mind the caves.

I would have to say that colonisation of northern Canada, Siberia, the Sahara or Antarctia is a far more attainable goal than of anywhere in space. The US and EU should be focusing more resources on that.

Are you aware that much of northern Canada is permafrost that is rapidly melting due to global warming? Some settlements have already fallen into the ocean or lakes because what they were built on turned to slush or outright melted into water.

You Americans don't seem to believe in spending money on socialised health-care, but rush to defend the space-program. Go figure...

Hey, it's not just Americans who like the space program; we Canadians are in favor of it, too.

The thing about colonization is that it will require a different mindset on the part of the colonists -- the idea that wasting resources is (for lack of a better word) a sin. It has to become unthinkable to waste water, air, food, and other resources.

There's a quote from Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where Manny is explaining the difference to his Earth friend Stewart: (paraphrased) "You have a saying: Free as air... For you, air is free. For me, is quarterly charge."

Would you guess that Manny and his family and the other colonists waste their water and air? Not if they want basic survival, they don't.

 

[aelf]

I think it's absurd to think that politicians or bureaucrats would allocate inordinately huge budgets on things like space exploration under today's circumstances. As can be seen here, it just isn't as popular as throwing money at today's problems or improving standards of living. I think, therefore, that the budget would be comparatively small and thus likely to be justifiable considering the potential long-term benefits of such projects.

 

[scy12]

I don't think that the barriers we have in space exploration-colonization are due to bad planning , lack of ambition , etc. It is just too costly ,we are behind in the technology needed. However our need for more resources will sooner or later force us to pursue this path. The thing is even if we consentrate now on it it isn't like we have any reachable goals. So what can we do ? Invest in space programs and space exploration but with moderation because currently their are more effective and beneficial things to do.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think that the barriers we have in space exploration-colonization are due to bad planning , lack of ambition , etc. It is just too costly ,we are behind in the technology needed. However our need for more resources will sooner or later force us to pursue this path. The thing is even if we consentrate now on it it isn't like we have any reachable goals. So what can we do ? Invest in space programs and space exploration but with moderation because currently their are more effective and beneficial things to do.

Actually, bad planning is a HUGE barrier. Am I the only one here who watched the Challenger hearings live? It was infuriating and heartbreaking to hear all the buck-passing and finger-pointing over the malfunction that cost seven astronauts' lives, an expensive space vehicle, many $$$$$$$$$$$, the public's confidence, and set scientific research back by decades.

Okay, a modest plan would be this: invest more in education, particularly in the sciences, in public schools and make higher education more accessible to those who have the academic qualifications, regardless of economic background. Teach kids that it's not futile or silly to reach for the stars -- or even just the Moon. Sure, some schools already do a decent job of this, but it's nowhere enough. Grade One isn't too early.