Overall I'm in favour of the space program, but I want to play devil's advocate here. To me, the issue is not money. It's that a lot of the most brilliant scientists and engineers in the world are working for NASA, when they could be working on 'real-world' problems.
Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate . . . just look at me in the real estate thread.
Anyhow, I think there are a LOT of trickle down inventions/technology from NASA and that field in general. If you're not pushing the edges then I would suggest that the pace of progress isn't going to be very fast overall.
When was the last time you researched solar panels? If you are interested, I can send you all kinds of info. $20,000 on a new home to never have a power bill again doesn't sound like a 'novelty' to me.
I've done lots of research on solar panels, thanks. The fact that I, as a north-american homeowner, can afford a system doesn't make it a transformative technology yet, since it's still out of reach for 99% of people in the world.
But we'd be derailing this thread if we got into a debate on current solar power viability. You can say that is was viable ten years ago, I can say that it's not going to be viable for another decade, it doesn't really matter because we have different definitions of viability. You're still looking at 50+ years from the time that photovoltaic cells were first developed until the time that they began to impact global energy production. Could an organization like NASA, given a mandate, have reduced that time significantly? I certainly think so.
Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate . . . just look at me in the real estate thread.
Anyhow, I think there are a LOT of trickle down inventions/technology from NASA and that field in general. If you're not pushing the edges then I would suggest that the pace of progress isn't going to be very fast overall.
I think if you took those same top scientists/engineers and had them research something else, you'd probably be able to push the edges as well.
The same resources devoted to a more efficient mandate should produce equal or great results, IMO.
You can't terraform mars because it has a super weak magnetosphere. The solar wind would blow away any atmosphere you create. Listen to astronomy cast episode 96 for more details. (astronomycast.com)
I would rather spend money on sending a probe to Europa. Europa is one of Jupiter's moons. It's outer shell is covered in ice. But due to gravitational interactions with Jupiter and other moons astronomers think underneath the ice there is an ocean.
Ganymede is another moon of Jupiter that could have a ocean beneath the surface.
I would rather spend big money to create a probe to visit Europa or Ganymede rather then go to Mars. On Mars you might find evidence that life once existed on Mars. On Europa or Ganymede you might find life that is still alive.
I've done lots of research on solar panels, thanks. The fact that I, as a north-american homeowner, can afford a system doesn't make it a transformative technology yet, since it's still out of reach for 99% of people in the world.
But we'd be derailing this thread if we got into a debate on current solar power viability. You can say that is was viable ten years ago, I can say that it's not going to be viable for another decade, it doesn't really matter because we have different definitions of viability. You're still looking at 50+ years from the time that photovoltaic cells were first developed until the time that they began to impact global energy production. Could an organization like NASA, given a mandate, have reduced that time significantly? I certainly think so.
That's fair enough. It'd be a lot cooler than Tang, thats for sure.
i would be fine if we never went into space, i think its an expense and luxury we can do without.
if we never went into space, then we wouldn't have satellites that impact virtually all aspects of our lives. we wouldn't have kids who dream of working for NASA, who enter the sciences and end up developing technology for us here on Earth. we wouldn't have the telescopes and instruments in orbit to detect asteroids and comets that may impact Earth. and we wouldn't be exploring what is destined to be the future of humanity
just imagine if England said "We don't need to go to the New World, it's an expense and luxury that we can do without". very narrow minded and simplistic view
if we never went into space, then we wouldn't have satellites that impact virtually all aspects of our lives.
Non-manned space flight is much cheaper than manned spaceflight, and there's no reason to think we wouldn't have satellites without having manned spaceflight.
The first satellite launch was 4 years before the first manned spaceflight ('57 vs '61) suggesting that satellite development is not dependent on manned space flight.
As for an earth destroying space rock, maybe we should invest more money in hard rock oil drillers and tactical nuclear weapons...
Weird to hear him say President Bush, thankfully he died before Bush Jr.
If you like autotune....
But yeah, I'm more with Proton on this, we should definitely do it. The time scale for me is 20-30 years, we should be more ready to do it, and the prep time for such a mission, well number of missions assuming material only missions; is realistic.
I'm less concerned with the costs, as I am about the technology and safety, this is such a complex and risky adventure; Mars is not the moon.
Non-manned space flight is much cheaper than manned spaceflight, and there's no reason to think we wouldn't have satellites without having manned spaceflight.
The first satellite launch was 4 years before the first manned spaceflight ('57 vs '61) suggesting that satellite development is not dependent on manned space flight.
As for an earth destroying space rock, maybe we should invest more money in hard rock oil drillers and tactical nuclear weapons...
a lot of equipment in orbit needed a space shuttle and astronauts to get setup correctly, which would have been impossible had it not been for the manned space program of the 60's
a lot of equipment in orbit needed a space shuttle and astronauts to get setup correctly, which would have been impossible had it not been for the manned space program of the 60's
It seems to me that maybe they could have solved that problem remotely without spending 5 Billion on Gemini and another 25 Billion on Apollo. And that was in the '60s, when a billion was real money...
I'm not saying manned space flight is a bad idea, just that everything the government spends $$ on should be evaluated in comparison to the next best project.
It seems to me that maybe they could have solved that problem remotely without spending 5 Billion on Gemini and another 25 Billion on Apollo. And that was in the '60s, when a billion was real money...
I'm not saying manned space flight is a bad idea, just that everything the government spends $$ on should be evaluated in comparison to the next best project.
as mentioned before, that kind of money is a drop in the bucket of what the US spends on national defense. and if you consider how much money that would be for a worldwide space agency (what should happen if we want to get serious about space exploration) it's chump change
if you look at it as simply ensuring the survival of the human race, then space exploration and colonization is critical. we need people living in self-sustaining colonies away from Earth before we blow the planet up ourselves or a big space rock does it for us
Yes, but it doesn't have to be just an American mission. The cold war is over. All countries should co-operate and share the bill in order to make it possible.
Yes, but it doesn't have to be just an American mission. The cold war is over. All countries should co-operate and share the bill in order to make it possible.
that won't happen for the same reason that all the arctic countries are fighting over the north pole, resources. there's already plans from several countries to colonize and mine the moon, and i doubt anyone plans on sharing
