Space should it be the final frontier?

[MrPresident]

We all know about the history of space exploration resulting in the moon landing. However since that point has space exploration achieve anything worthwhile. We all hear about billions and billions of dollars spent by NASA and other space agencies on missions. The international space station is the lastest step in this development. Is it worth the money? Could that money be better spent to improve life on earth? If America spent half on what is does on NASA on aid how much its world P.R. ratings goes up? Is there a need for further space exploration? What would be achieved by a mission to Mars? We know more about the moon than we do about our own oceans. Is this right? Do you support further space exploration?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth!"

With this in mind, we must aim for the stars, although we'll probably still get some on the seat.

 

[knowltok2]

Aim for the stars. Think long term. All our eggs in one basket is a bad thing. Also, our own history has shown that it is better to land on alien shores than to have the aliens land on ours.

I'm not talking conspiracy theories here or anything, just a belief that there is intelligent life out there somewhere, and I am not willing to bet the race on the assumption that it will be peaceful.

 

[a_disciple]

My opinion is, that we are using far to much money on space exploring. We should try and reach the "unreachable" borders of earth first.

The goal of the human race should be peace on earth and no sickness. The people of earth should start to know each other as people of the same race, and that we all - somewhere - are related to each other.

As a Christian it is natural for me to point to Jesus Christ. If the people of earth would follow His example we sure would have a better earth. But that is hard when even we Christians are doing just the opposite of what He did. If we - who call us Christians - do not follow His example - how on earth can the rest of the world do it then?

The only thing I can do is to pray and try myself to follow His example. I know also that there is alot of Christians who do follow His example. That I am happy for, but I wish we were more who did it...

Back to the topic. I think that instead of using billions of dollars on research to reach something outside our own earth, we should start to spend billions of dollars to help our sick planet, so that the human race can again be what it was itended to be.

I know - that someday, we will have a fully healed earth and a fully healed human race. But until then, we should do our best to see more healing of the earth today.

 

[Richard III]

Normally I would see A_Disciple's point, paraphrased loosely as "charity begins at home." But I must admit a certain sympathy for Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek vision, in that - if successful - a rapid buildup in our exploration of space would have a unifying effect on the planet here at home, and probably produce some environmental, medical and even social solutions to Earthbound problems in the process.

Oddly naive, but I beleive it all the same.

R.III

 

[ainwood]

The space programme is about more than just space exploration. It allows thing like the Hubble space telescope which allow us to better understand the entire universe. This actually has benefits on-Earth, in things like quantum physics, helping technological advances in general.

There are also other benefits - eg. teflon was "discovered" by NASA.

For other specifics, researching the atmosphere of other planets may help us better understand ours (eg. Mars has shrinking polar caps, despite no human intervention. Why?)

Yes, keep the funding going.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I'm all for space exploration! I think before I comment on the $$ and charity argument I'm going to go do some research on relative US budgets.

I'll be back. :mutant:

 

[dannyevilcat]

More money to space exploration!

1)Finding and exploiting resources on other planets would provide long term prosperity for the human race.

2)Knowltok2 said it, with the eggs in one basket being a bad thing. If we can colonize other worlds, the chnces for mankind's survival as a species increased exponentially.

3)Exploration is exciting, inspiring.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by MrPresident
We all know about the history of space exploration resulting in the moon landing. However since that point has space exploration achieve anything worthwhile. We all hear about billions and billions of dollars spent by NASA and other space agencies on missions. The international space station is the lastest step in this development. Is it worth the money? Could that money be better spent to improve life on earth? If America spent half on what is does on NASA on aid how much its world P.R. ratings goes up? Is there a need for further space exploration? What would be achieved by a mission to Mars? We know more about the moon than we do about our own oceans. Is this right? Do you support further space exploration?

I return with some numbers: The "billions and billions of dollars" that is being spent? NASA's budget for 2002 is $13.9 Billion dollars (space.com). To put that in perspective, the 2002 US Military budget is $335 Billion Dollars (wagingpeace.org ).

The reason the average Joe doesn't think NASA is accomplishing anything is because they haven't been given the budget to do anything spectacular since the moon landings. In truth, they have accomplished a great deal, exploring our solar system and gathering information about the cosmos.

Now, you ask "why shouldn't this money be spent on improving life on earth?". There are two answers:

The first is that space exploration does improve life on earth, through innovation linked to the space program, and through the scientific data gathered about null-g, our solar system, and the cosmos in general.

The second answer is that you are asking the wrong question in the first place. The space exploration budget is miniscule compared to what our decadent western societies spend on other things. There is plenty of money wasted elsewhere, why take money away from an arguably beneficial entity? I agree that more money should be spent on 'improving life on earth', but it shouldn't come from the NASA budget.

Why do we need more space exploration? Because it is our future. No matter what we do here on earth, whether we "improve ourselves" or fall into anarchy, we cannot survive in the long term as a species while confined to one planet. All of the space exploration that we do is to further that goal, whether it be landing on other planets, or sending probes to the stars.

You say we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own seafloor. Yet even if we only spend a dollar a year on sea exploration, eventually we will know all we care to know about it. Space will always beckon with new unknowns.

 

[CornMaster]

Yes.

We have to begin to explore space. Earth is going to ****, because the superpowers only care of profit, at the expense of everything/one else. But people fail to realize the long term implications of their decisions.

A guy did a study on fish. The fish would change sexes and turn female over a while. He thought it was natural, but then he found out that the river was a dumping gound for a plastics plant.

Male sperm cell counts have been down over the last 30+ years. Because of plastics??? Our friend? Or is it Mountian Dew like people keep saying.

Either way people do things without long term testing of thinking of all the possibilites....and we are going to screw ourselves. If we don't reach into space...it's the end of mankind.

Then again....maybe our destruction would help keep the universe a clean place...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Sparrowhawk's data is all the answer the question needs, but I love to see my own words in print, so here goes:

If we continue the exploration of space, and develop better, more efficient ways to travel, and space travel becomes more commonplace, the following will be true:

1) We will need a way to either create or store food on long trips. This will lead to the development of hydroponics and new food storage methods. These technologies will directly benefit the starving masses.

2) We will need to develop a recycling system that is 100% efficient, and be able to maintain it indefinitely. This capacity will be able to be used to clean up the earth in short order, and keep it that way on a more or less permanent basis. This can't help but benefit everyone.

3) On long voyages, overcrowding and social friction will need to be addessed. The answers used in space will also apply on earth. New entertainment technologies and building methods (although admittedly some 0-gee methods will be unusable on earth) will alleviate earth's overcrowding as well.

4) We'll see some really cool **** while we're out there, and maybe the wonder and joy of life will come back into existence. We gotta remember to send poets and musicians int space with the first explorers, so someone can give it all some meaning.

Styx is on the radio. Long Nights.

 

[Zwelgje]

Let's find a way to use our planet in such a way that we don't destroy it before we f**k up the rest of the solar system or other parts of the universe.
When we have accomplished peace on earth and prosperity for all we may be worthy to proceed to other worlds. Until that day we deserve it that aliens come "at our shores" and beat the crap out of us. What good have we done anyway until now?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I don't believe in little green men.

More to the point, I recognize the limitations of interstellar travel.

Aliens that can bridge the gap twixt the stars are not going to waster their time and energy trifling with a backwater solar system in the oter arm of the galaxy, when there are much closer stars in the center. Shorter distances and quicker commutes are going to make the core the most valuable real estate in the galaxy, as long as Niven isn't right.

 

[Andu Indorin]

Well, I see as of today that there are at least two players who seem to prefer conquest to building a space ship as the way to end a game of civ.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Actually, I almost always go to AC. But that's pretty good sci-fi, it usually takes a decade or more to cross that distance, and that's just over an LY or two.

Actually travelling to some point in another galactic arm? You'd have to measure that trip time in geological ages.

"Okay, when we get back form our trip to the Betelgeuse, the continental drift effect should have finished turning the Pacific Rim Islands into the Pacific Mountain Range . . ."

(That's 800 LY away.)

Even the most credible sci-fi story involving space travel I ever read implied that space travel would be marginally less than the speed of light, implying that a round trip to Betelgeuse would take 2000 years.

The only theoretically plausible FTL travel is via wormholes, and those require a vast amount of energy, 10^17th billion volts, to force open wide enough to travel through them. As far as naturally occurring ones like in Deep Space Nine go, well, that's Star Trek for you: okay fiction, terrible science.

 

[CornMaster]

Naaa....we can go faster than light. There are NO barriers that can't be broken. Look at the "discovery" of the Atom. Bohr said that it was the smallest thing there was. Undivisible. Then, later we discover the proton and electron. Undivisible hey. Then the Neutron (Yes...I realize they are all the same "level") Then they break down even further!! To give Quarks, anti-quarks, leptons, etc....etc....etc....

They said we would never break the speed of sound. We did it. They said we would never get into outerspace. We did it.

They said the Earth was flat for **** sakes....and we now know it's not.

The only thing that is stopping us from realizing we can travel faster than light, is limited knowledge of science. Physics in partictular....and that will only increase over time.

To conclude.....space is fun.

 

[amadeus]

I say funnel NASA's exploration budget into a missile defense program.

I don't care if we land on Jupiter, I'd still be dead after a nuclear holocaust

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I say funnel NASA's exploration budget into a missile defense program.

I don't care if we land on Jupiter, I'd still be dead after a nuclear holocaust

I say we funnel NASA's budget into education.

You can't land on Jupiter....it's made of gas.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by CornMaster


I say we funnel NASA's budget into education.

You can't land on Jupiter....it's made of gas.

Or we could funnel those nukes into NASA's program, and play billiards with asteroids.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I'd bet that the monarchs of Spain wondered about this same issue when they agreed to finance Colombus' expedition westwards.... Look at the end-result now.