Space: What a waste of money

[Spirix]

I believe that exploring space wastes money that could be better spent here on Earth. There are communities who need it more desperately than the rich need to get to the stars.

We are constantly told about poverty and asked to give money to help the little girl who waits. What kind of example is it when the richest nation in the world is spending an incredible amount of money on going to Mars before they help those on their own soil who can't get an education? Setting up a colony would create more jobs, yes, but only for the very skilled. It would relieve no pressure on the economically challenged. Before we go gallivanting off into the unknown, we should be helping out the countries that don't have enough money to spend on industry, let alone space.

We have to learn to take better care of the planet that spawned us before we start trying to inhabit others. Earth is degrading. There is a hole in the ozone layer, air pollution kills 250 people a year in Auckland and we cut down trees because we can't see the view. How did the planet get like this? Through our careless development and use of resources. If we continue in this fashion, we will have to leave because the planet will have become so toxic. We wouldn't need to worry about going to space at all if we started becoming more ecologically friendly.

There are plenty of things we can do on Earth, and more cheaply, to help us get into space. As we know from the Challenger accident, going into space and coming back again is risky. There is so much that can go wrong. We should be looking for ways to make it safer. Also, the parts that come away from shuttles just hang around up there, orbiting quietly. There are ways we can improve on these things before getting off Earth. Things like better protection against heat, more economical and faster engines, and ways to recycle the scrap that is jettisoned from shuttles that now orbits the planet. These are simple things that could make such a difference to the cost of space travel.

Exploring space wastes a lot of money that is desperately needed in other areas, here on Earth. People are dying of starvation and disease in Africa while rich Americans fork out for commercial space flights and our planet is dying of disease too. While space travel will be necessary in the future to relieve the overcrowding that is inevitable, it is not right now and we could spend the money used to go to space on improving the cost-effectiveness of such trips and we could even discover something important for the people on the planet now. Here and now, on this planet, with these people, is more important than going to space.

This is an artical written by a member at the SCC and he said I could use it. So what do you think? Personally I totally agree with him. I mean it's fun and all to go out into space, but to spend billions on it and not spend that on the country to improve jobs and all that great stuff is just insane :mad . What do you think?

[Siblesz]

We waste more billions on the lottery and Hollywood... And exploring the space might seem futile right now, but just wait 100 years when we deplete the world's resources... The Moon will seem pretty golden when we find out there's no more ****** in the Earth. I'm not saying it will happen, but it CAN happen, and if we don't fund World space technology, then we will be pretty :wub:ed when we find that our Earth is nothing but a human wastebag.

And diverting a couple of billion dollars to space technology is not so stupid when you see in what other ways the government spends its budget, like funding the Iraq War, which costs over 50 times more money than funding NASA.

[Necrobrit]

There are plenty of things we can do on Earth, and more cheaply, to help us get into space. As we know from the Challenger accident, going into space and coming back again is risky. There is so much that can go wrong. We should be looking for ways to make it safer. Also, the parts that come away from shuttles just hang around up there, orbiting quietly. There are ways we can improve on these things before getting off Earth. Things like better protection against heat, more economical and faster engines, and ways to recycle the scrap that is jettisoned from shuttles that now orbits the planet. These are simple things that could make such a difference to the cost of space travel.

And when you get into space and find that the new technology doesn't work in zero grav... what then?

The spending in general though... well, it makes no diference to me, I'm not poor nor will I be alive to reap the benifits of the space program.

We are constantly told about poverty and asked to give money to help the little girl who waits. What kind of example is it when the richest nation in the world is spending an incredible amount of money on going to Mars before they help those on their own soil who can't get an education?

Or spending billions on Iraq when govornments in Africa are doing nothing to protect their citizens from those who would do them harm?

[Spirix]

Originally posted by Siblesz@Nov 20 2004, 10:20 PM
We waste more billions on the lottery and Hollywood... And exploring the space might seem futile right now, but just wait 100 years when we deplete the world's resources... The Moon will seem pretty golden when we find out there's no more ****** in the Earth. I'm not saying it will happen, but it CAN happen, and if we don't fund World space technology, then we will be pretty :wub:ed when we find that our Earth is nothing but a human wastebag.

And diverting a couple of billion dollars to space technology is not so stupid when you see in what other ways the government spends its budget, like funding the Iraq War, which costs over 50 times more money than funding NASA.

How do we lose money on the lottery. The government gains from that or at least I thought. I do agree that we will soon need space travel, but once the earths resources run out what would the moon do for us. It's just extra space for more people, but they would soon die off because there would be no resources for them to live off of. I think what we should do is to spend that money on saving our planet. If we can perserve the earth then why would we need to leave the planet. But when the planets population is way to large then yes we would need to go to the moon.

[rububula]

t's just extra space for more people, but they would soon die off because there would be no resources for them to live off of. I think what we should do is to spend that money on saving our planet. If we can perserve the earth then why would we need to leave the planet.

It's Darwinian, babycakes. But not quite. We're not talking survival of the fittest, we're talking survival of the organism. The organism humanity is driven to survive, and that means getting the hell off earth. Read Howard Bloom for more about organisms.

The Earth has a very definite lifespan. In a few billion years, the earth will plunge into the sun. We have to not be here when that happens. But that's too remote to really think about, giving money to NASA now or later won't really affect whether or not we're here billions of years from now. But there are more immediate things.

65 million years ago, an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. While an impact (probably) wouldn't drive us to extinction, it could be almost as bad as a nuclear war. With all systems of power and communication lost, and much of the population killed, we would be forced to pick up the pieces in a mad-max like culture of barbarism.

A nuclear war is also a remote, but distinct possibility. A nuclear war would also probably not mean the end of the species, but civilization would be set back centuries, if not millenia. And yes, we'll pick up the pieces, and in another thousand years we'll be back to where we are now, but we shouldn't have to keep rebuilding what we destroy. We shouldn't be living in fear of one cataclysmic event.

That's why we NEED to go into space. Like the Jews spread across the world, we need to spread across the galaxy to ensure that no one cataclysmic event can drive us to extinction. As long as we're only on Earth, we're constantly on the edge. I want humanity to be there to see the entire universe die of heat death, according to the law of entropy.

The moon is just a step. It's difficult to build a large spacecraft on earth, because you need to get it into space somehow. But a moon base would allow us to construct anything we want in 0 gravity, you just need to fly the parts up from earth.

We're really living in the stone age. With enough time, anything is possible. We just don't have time.

[Spirix]

If we were in need to go to another planet where would we get our resources form, if the earth was indeed destroyed or no longer inhabitable. We will be sending humans to other planets but, then how would they get there food and water if the planet that supplied us with that in the first place was destroyed. We just wouldn't have the resources to do it.

Now if we were to spend that money on keeping our planet habitable and clean then we wouldn't need to go out into space. The only downside is if there was some sort of major impact between the earth and an astoriod. But then we would have scientists predicting the exact time of impact and we could plan on ways to handle such an event.

Then we have the problem of the different climates. How do you think we would be able to keep millions of people in space where theres no oxygen and either extremely hot or cold weather. As far as I know the nearest planet that has a habitable enviorment with a good temperature is trillions of miles away.

And if we were to move there where would we get the oxygen to breath. I think a simple solution is to spend money on way to improve the earth. Like building factories to clean the air and to find ways to better fuel our cars and ways to decrease the cut down of trees. And to even feed our own people. All we nned is a little more concentration on our own planet and less on others.

[Necrobrit]

By request of a regular member. (just to prove civitates aren't eliteist bastards)

Message Forwarded From Aristophanes

Please post this mon cher

Or spending billions on Iraq when govornments in Africa are doing nothing to protect their citizens from those who would do them harm?

...you mean like their 'governments'? [this is TOO funny]

There aren't ten countries in a continent of more than 40 with what could be even remotely termed 'democratic'. And there isn't one country in all those nations which doesn't have closed, elitist capital markets which consistently prevent the poor from bettering themselves. Africa needs stability, and open capital markets first and foremost, and its not likely to get that from its current band of thugs supported by IMF welfare, and illegal and immoral pillage of resources from the land.

Oh, I loved this gem from HatefulEmperor too:

This is an artical written by a member at the SCC and he said I could use it. So what do you think? Personally I totally agree with him. I mean it's fun and all to go out into space, but to spend billions on it and not spend that on the country to improve jobs and all that great stuff is just insane . What do you think?

Oh, you mean, like, use money confiscated from people to IMPROVE THEIR LIVES? What umitigated satire!!! What a poignant mind you have!!! The comedy produced here is inimitable!!! Class act!!!

Where's the need for markets when governments can do everything so much better?

Do any of you ever stop to think about what the Soviet Union would have been minus the best farmland and the greatest reserves of natural resources on the planet? Try North Korea, Cambodia or maybe Vietnam.

Of course the rebuttal will be: "Russia turned capitalist, and it's still poor!!!" Such remarks are red herrings.[i.e. what is meant by 'capitalism?'] Although the Russian state divested itself of much of its economic control, markets[and capital markets in particular-i.e. the banking system and stock markets] in that country remained anything but free. To begin, the sale of state companies went virtually exclusively to ex nomenklatura bigwigs and friends of government officials.[think Yukos] Laws, regulations, and banking institutions were rigged to deny average people opportunities to obtain capital, preventing them from improving their lives or taking risks that would raise their standards of living. Those people with money took the concept of 'free markets' a little to literally and bribed judges and politicians to hinder competition or enforce their monopolies-if that didn't work, they turned to the ubiquitous Chechen and Russian mafia.
Russia, with all its 'economic reforms', accomplished very little because the rules and regulations[or lack thereof] simply entrenched a new elite, and prevented or ignored the lawful protection of property. Rampant inflation is testament to their arrogant denial of property rights.
Of course, there are other problems which make free market reform difficult for Russia; these are mostly cultural and geographical. I'm not interested in discussing them at the moment...

I'm sick of hearing 'capitalism' doesn't work or 'see how free markets benefited Argentina'.[wtf is capitalism? how is that term pertinent to any SERIOUS economic discussion?] Why this disconnect? Are you children that you can not see the difference between words, and fact?[res non verba] Before you go around saying 'liberal economics don't work,' why don't you discover what those terms imply and then see how apt your criticisms are?


Aristo

[Portuguese Rebel]

Actually the critic on space exploration money investments can be made to about any investment in science. Why waste all that money? Simple answer: Imagine yourself in a flea invested city from the middle ages... That is the alternative reality to no investment in science.

When the next huge space boulder comes our way we better have some space travelling skills or we might go dinossaur... and that is not nice :w00t

[Roman American]

Personally, I'd 86 Social Security (I'll take my chances, not to mention that no man in my bloodline has ever survived long enough to collect it, but we've all paid into it) and the Endowment for the Arts before cutting back the Space Program. Directly funding or subsidizing scientific advancement is quite possibly the greatest service that our respective governments do. (not to mention the coolest)

Feeding the hungry down here is a very noble cause, but space exploration and colonization is the final key to ensuring the future and ultimate survival of the human species, as many of you have noted. A bit dramatic, but undeniably true.

[Spirix]

Originally posted by Roman American@Nov 21 2004, 08:29 PM
Personally, I'd 86 Social Security (I'll take my chances, not to mention that no man in my bloodline has ever survived long enough to collect it, but we've all paid into it) and the Endowment for the Arts before cutting back the Space Program. Directly funding or subsidizing scientific advancement is quite possibly the greatest service that our respective governments do. (not to mention the coolest)

Feeding the hungry down here is a very noble cause, but space exploration and colonization is the final key to ensuring the future and ultimate survival of the human species, as many of you have noted. A bit dramatic, but undeniably true.

Yes, but if we were to keep our planet clean starvation would plague the hungry and keep population low so that there is not an overcrowding problem and so people would not need to go into space to spread the population.

The only time in which I would think we would need to go to another planet would be if the planet was in danger of being destroyed by some asteroid or nuclear war. In the case of the asteriod we would have plenty of time to prepare, becaus e we would have scientists predicting when the collision will occur. In the case of a neclear war I don't see how any of us could survive it.

[Syron]

I really can't believe this conversation and I certainly can't believe this is a quote from any person in the space industry, at least not one with a broad view of it.

Firstly what does anybody think spending more on aid will do? The truth is that current aid is nearly enough to deal with many of the worlds problems it's just used and distributed very poorly. The world has enough food to feed everyone easily yet millions are starving because a lot of food is rotting in european and American warehouses. As for the poor in home countries it's the same, the organisation of support, not money that is the overiding factor. The myth that somehow Space Exploration money could best be spent on the poor is just that. Just as space exploration relies more on political will than on funding, so does aid, so I simply cannot agree with such an argument.

We have to learn to take better care of the planet that spawned us before we start trying to inhabit others. Earth is degrading. There is a hole in the ozone layer, air pollution kills 250 people a year in Auckland and we cut down trees because we can't see the view. How did the planet get like this?

And what do you think monitors such problems, you guessed it, spacecraft! Most of our knowledge of such things comes from earth monitoring, a major part of space exploration. Nasa does a bit but ESA does a lot of this work. What is amusing to me is that while the reports on the O-Zone layer from the UN will no doubt cite numerousd earth observation equipment yet people still critise space programmes! Perhaps your time would be better spent telling Bush that there actually is a problem.

Through our careless development and use of resources. If we continue in this fashion, we will have to leave because the planet will have become so toxic. We wouldn't need to worry about going to space at all if we started becoming more ecologically friendly.

I recently went to a place that helps develop ways of showing and teaching people how best to use and "integrate" with there local area, It just so happened to be a facility developing satelites! I believe one of their last projects was one to help the Nigerian government to prevent disasters and to manage crops!

There are plenty of things we can do on Earth, and more cheaply, to help us get into space. As we know from the Challenger accident, going into space and coming back again is risky. There is so much that can go wrong. We should be looking for ways to make it safer. Also, the parts that come away from shuttles just hang around up there, orbiting quietly. There are ways we can improve on these things before getting off Earth. Things like better protection against heat, more economical and faster engines, and ways to recycle the scrap that is jettisoned from shuttles that now orbits the planet. These are simple things that could make such a difference to the cost of space travel.

All the more reason to use space as no matter what you can do on the ground you can never know what will happen in space till things are actually sent up. Remember Hubble? If I remember correctly what saved it was a spacewalk to fix it's optics and then what happened next? It went on to become the greatest scientific instrument in history, confirming old ideas and helping formulating new ones.

we could spend the money used to go to space on improving the cost-effectiveness of such trips

Yeah like people stopped flying in planes till the jet engine came around. :wack The fact is the neccesity is the mother of invention, how do programmes get support if the politicians don't see anything in the skies? You do not get anything better till you get tired of the ineffectiveness of the old thing. Stop going into space and space research will ground to a halt.

On to the comments..........

I mean it's fun and all to go out into space, but to spend billions on it and not spend that on the country to improve jobs

Do yo really think people want go into space because it is fun? Take one industry, telecommunications, how many jobs does that create world wide? Thats just one industry where space is now essential for jobs (not just the highly skilled either). The amount of jobs the space industry actually provides in the world is enormous the fact is the number of industries it is in is too numerous to count. I like to put it this way, get rid of the space industry and you'll be counting the number of jobs lost, not gained.

If we were in need to go to another planet where would we get our resources form, if the earth was indeed destroyed or no longer inhabitable. We will be sending humans to other planets but, then how would they get there food and water if the planet that supplied us with that in the first place was destroyed. We just wouldn't have the resources to do it.

From other planets hence why we are exploring them It's not like earth is the only plante or object withy resources. I think you are being a little melodramatic with the whole earth distruction thing but even in such a case its better to be prepared isn't it? I'd rather have a space industry in place than have to magic one up in the perhaps year we might have before our impending doom.

But then we would have scientists predicting the exact time of impact and we could plan on ways to handle such an event.

Don't count on it, the only reason why such programmes have the little funding they do have is because of space exploration and what we have so far learnt. We can only scan small parts of space for small periods of time (hence the need for space telescopes) and the fact is that at the moment we have more likelyhood of being struck by something we will never detect! We are extremely unlikey to have much warning of a NEO unless of course we have a permanent prescence in space. Please don't use Hollywood as a basis, most of it it myth mixed with a dash of science.

Then we have the problem of the different climates. How do you think we would be able to keep millions of people in space where theres no oxygen and either extremely hot or cold weather.

Millions, come on! Space exploration isn't about ferrying everybody across space, your view is a little Hollywoodised I think. But adressing your scenario people would live in artificial habitats effectively seperating themeselves form the difficult environments. No-one said space was a nice place!

As far as I know the nearest planet that has a habitable enviorment with a good temperature is trillions of miles away.

Trillions of miles away? Since that would put it out of this star system and no habitable planet has yet been found outside the Sol system, I'd like to know where you got the info from? Also, what do you define as habitable?


The thing is I feel that people don't agree with space exploration because they don't know much about it, which makes me concerned about the original quote. For example recently a scanner for the early detection of breast cancer was developed from work on a space imager. Breast cancer is one of the big cancer killers (well it is here in England) so think how much this single advance could do. There are so many similar examples that I would be still typing well into the next milenium if I was to tell you them all so while I understand people dislike of the "waste" they see from space programmes I think it is simply because people aren't normally shown how much unique things are derived from it.

Sorry for the long post but I am a passionate supporter of space exploration and I feel there are many wrong things that are banded around about it.

[DavidtheDuke]

This is what we should be interested in:

Singularity Institute

Da Future Updizzates

[Spirix]

I do agree that traveling into space is helpful. I mean where would we be if we didn't have satalites to help us talk to each other and use telecomunications and to have spy satalites to spy on other countries to protect us from stuff like a nuclear war. So all in all I think space is helpful, but I do think it could use some changes. Like mabey halting space travel to find ways to use different soarces of furel and then picking up were we left off of.

[Syron]

Originally posted by HatefulEmperor17@Nov 21 2004, 09:25 PM
I do agree that traveling into space is helpful. I mean where would we be if we didn't have satalites to help us talk to each other and use telecomunications and to have spy satalites to spy on other countries to protect us from stuff like a nuclear war. So all in all I think space is helpful, but I do think it could use some changes. Like mabey halting space travel to find ways to use different soarces of furel and then picking up were we left off of.

I'm glad you agree but there are a problems with your idea. Firstly If we stop space travel (do you mean human or robotic?) then there are major repercussions. You cannot stop and then pick up where you left of, why? because of the people involved. An example is the Alacantra disaster in Brazil when their first space rocket exploded on the launchpad. The worst thing about the disaster for Brazil was not the loss of the rocket but the 21 skilled expert technicians caught in the blast which has set it's capabilities quite a bit. You see the whole industry is based on "know-how". If for some reason your current know-how is lost then you have to start from almost scratch. Space programme aren't just a thing where you can pack the plans in a box and open them up again in the future and begin work, you need the experience of those who have worked on similar systems for things to run smoothly.

If your scenario happened eventually all the experienced people would be long gone and with no programmes to train the new generation on it would be like starting out again in the early 20th century. You see, halting space travel is it's deathnell, most programme run over such long periods of time that they by removing them you lose decades worth or more of experience.

Secondly there are already many missions in use or in development studying all manner of propulsion methods. The thing is that these developed because scientists wan't to get to places faster with a greater payload of experiments, it is space travel that spurs on development.

Thirdly If your so concerned about fuel why on earth are you targetting the space industry? Surely wouldn't it be better to "change" as you put it the automobile industry so as they implement alternative fuels more quickly? The idea that Space travel is consuming all the worlds fuel is quite funny, hell look at air travel!

[Arcaliea]

hatefulemperor, the issue is that funding spent on space travel is not a gigantic, overbearing monster on the budget that severely detracts from things like looking for alternative fuel (oh, they're very eager to do that), aid (already buckletloads of money being poured in), etc. Your consistent and singular rebuttal is that "we wouldn't need space travel for survival if we kept our planet clean". The very nature of humanity is continually expansive, and there is no way that we will be able to live here for a lot longer without pursuing radical new inventions in technology. It could be some zen thing that lets usl ive without food, water or air, or it could be space travel, the most practical approach we have right now. There is no way, both scientifically and politically, that we will be able to contain humanity from using Earth up; so before we hit the crest of human expansion in Earth (if we haven't already) then start going downhill in varying speeds, we need to offset that by alternative habitats.

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

I agree with the wise words of Arcaliea. The benefits of science cannot be counted, and something like space exploration, especially unmanned, WILL pay dividends to the future success and greatness of mankind. As I see it, disagreeing with this is ultimately disagreeing with the path of humanity the last few hundred years.

NM

[Roman American]

Originally posted by HatefulEmperor17@Nov 21 2004, 07:40 PM
The only time in which I would think we would need to go to another planet would be if the planet was in danger of being destroyed by some asteroid or nuclear war. In the case of the asteriod we would have plenty of time to prepare, becaus e we would have scientists predicting when the collision will occur. In the case of a neclear war I don't see how any of us could survive it.

Our planet is already in danger of being destroyed because our star has a finite lifespan. While I do agree that our local survival dilemnas are more visible (and also threaten humanity's survival) that cosmic clock is still ticking. We can have the cleanest environment we wish, but our planet is ultimately doomed no matter what we do to preserve its habitability. Our race can only survive if we find a way to move on. It is not in our nature to sit back and do nothing. Even those who don't buy into global warming and environmental preservation cannot deny that space travel and offworld colonization is the only thing that will allow humanity to live on indefinitely.

Saying that we can't explore the possiblities of space travel until we solve all of our domestic health problems is like punishing the whole of humanity with destruction because we didn't keep our room clean enough.

[Spirix]

Wow. This is very fun. I've read every post and I do see where you guys are going. You guys have changed my thoughts on space travel. At first I really didn't agree with it and I thought that the money would be better spent on other things to help out people. Like feeding the poor and cleaning the planet and to keep it clean. It's just that I would hate such a planet to be destroyed. But what I don't understand is if the earth was no longer inhabitable with Oxygen and water then what would the point to go out into space. We would have many colonies out there with no way to get any resources. I mean I have no clue how far the next planet is that has water and oxygen that we could you, but it must be pretty far away. Your thoughts?

BTW, How was my first topic in the Symposium? :p

[Rush Limbaugh]

I dont think theres a better place to put our money than into space exploration. Look at all we have reaped from the space program of the sixties. We wouldnt even be playing this game or posting here without it probably. The space race was a far better investment of money than any war ever was and drove technoligy at a rate that nothing outside of war has ever achieved. As Star Treak says Space the final frontier. It is our very nature to explore the unknown.

[Spirix]

Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh@Nov 22 2004, 06:13 PM
I dont think theres a better place to put our money than into space exploration. Look at all we have reaped from the space program of the sixties. We wouldnt even be playing this game or posting here without it probably. The space race was a far better investment of money than any war ever was and drove technoligy at a rate that nothing outside of war has ever achieved. As Star Treak says Space the final frontier. It is our very nature to explore the unknown.

What have we gained from exploring space? So far the only things I can think of is telescopes to spy on other countries and being able to send signals like telephone and TV signals. What other things have we gotten from exploring space?