|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2010 : 16:24:52
|
President Obama's speech on NASA plans:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html
I have always been undecided if we should spend so much on space exploration. Do we really need to go to Mars? I know many good technological advances (such as medicines)have come from pushing space travel. I just wonder if maybe we should spend less and not have such lofty goals. Can the problems in America use the money in the space program better, or is the advancements in technology a better investment. I really have not decided. I am curious what people here think.
I do agree with the President that going back to the moon seems a waste of money.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2010 : 17:20:57 [Permalink]
|
I myself am of two minds about it. On the one hand, some marvelous science could/would result, but would the cost overwhelm the results? I dunno.
Another advantage, though: building the vehicle would offer a little long-term employment, both blue and white collar and would benefit the surrounding community.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/15/2010 17:22:54 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 20:27:46 [Permalink]
|
Sentimentally I like it. I don't think the cost is all that high. Just saw something on CNN saying 2% of the government budget goes to scientific research, and some big chunks of that are Department of Energy and National Science Foundation funds.
Overall, I don't think it's a very good move, changing focus more to private industry because I just don't see good return on investment for private companies to use their own money in R&D, meaning government is still paying for it all but with somewhat less oversight. I worry the scientific community could become more closed off as private interests may want ownership of their research findings. Not sure what it could mean for the defense-related applications of space flight.
I wouldn't call the changes all bad though. Maybe pulling more ideas from private industry could be helpful. Much of the construction, design, etc, is already done by private industry, but if government can artificially incentivize research in space technology, maybe some new voices could be heard from some less-established sectors of industry who may be more willing to promote new ideas -- maybe they could be less ingrained with the current culture of the industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html (cool page) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/15/2010 : 21:00:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
I have always been undecided if we should spend so much on space exploration. Do we really need to go to Mars?
....
I do agree with the President that going back to the moon seems a waste of money. |
As compared to keeping military forces in Iraq?
USA has the economic potential to put colonies in Mars within 10-15 years, if they scrapped the Iraq-invasion today and started building rockets...
It's a question of priority. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 21:51:34 [Permalink]
|
| Those '(Applause.)' and '(Laughter.)' things in the article are exaggerated. I watched the thing and there wasn't a lot of either happening other than a few spots. It was pretty awkward because the president would pause for one of the two and get nothing half the time. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 10:18:29 [Permalink]
|
| I think the technology gained would far outweigh the costs involved |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 10:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
USA has the economic potential to put colonies in Mars within 10-15 years, |
Why should we put colonies on Mars? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2010 : 11:28:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
USA has the economic potential to put colonies in Mars within 10-15 years, |
Why should we put colonies on Mars?
|
Because we can!
Besides, it's never wise to keep all eggs in the same basket. Sooner or later something terrible will happen to humankind on earth, and if we have autonomous colonies elsewhere the human race has a chance to survive.
We have to start somewhere.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2010 : 03:00:21 [Permalink]
|
After much consideration, my feeling is that the George Bush plan, with its large boosters and Moon colonization, was essentially a cheap and dazzling promise that relied upon future administrations to pay the bill. Bush himself had cut much of his program's funding by the time he'd left office. It's as though Bush wanted to be associated with the likes of Kennedy on space issues, but without doing the "work."
But beyond that political issue, the biggest problem remains the incredible cost of putting mass into orbit, mainly reaction mass and other hard cargo. At least one alternative approach, the Quicklaunch space gun, promises to lower those costs dramatically in the mid-term future. My feeling after watching the one-hour video on the page linked to above is that Quicklaunch is practical and requires no really exotic technology. (Space elevators and the other proposed orbital launch systems, if practical at all, seem much further off, at best.)
It makes sense to me that we should be increasing the use of robotic probes in the short term, getting the very most scientific data possible from relatively low-cost conventional launches. While we are thus systematically exploring the solar system and beyond, the space gun is likely to mature, causing a revolution in the cost of putting reaction mass into orbit. This will allow a later generation of human colonization expeditions to the Moon and Mars.
So I think Obama's program is just about on target for a sustainable space program. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2010 : 06:25:02 [Permalink]
|
I think the idea of massive booster rockets to send people anywhere beyond the moon is outdated. I like the principle outlined by O'Neill and Marshall Savage (in his book, The Millennial Project); i.e. develop 'frontier' or outposts that use materials found in space and slowly expand outward from earth. Savage's book veers somewhat into 'pie-in-the-sky', woo-woo territory, but in my opinion (yikes, that could get dangerous), the theory is sound. Zubrin and his Mars proposals seem more grounded in reality.
The moon should be developed to a permanent base as well as stations situated at LaGrange points. The fuel saved from having to launch from the Earth's surface would make further exploration/colonization far more efficient and practical. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
 |
|
NASA Funding
