Is Space flight worth it?

[Urwumpe]

.. and won two world wars...

Alone? :tiphat:

 

[insanity]

Alone? :tiphat:

We did it with help of course, but I do think it is a fair argument to suggest our entry into both of those wars were critical for the success of the Allies. :tiphat:

 

[Ghostrider]

Alone? :tiphat:

I've heard Captain America had a hand in it as well.

 

[T.Neo]

It is far safer and economical then sending people who have to deal with the nagging concerns of life (being strong enough to eat, sleep, and reproduce viable offspring before they die).

He who complains about life being "nagging", is probably not alive himself.

Currently, humans can do certain things far better then machines can- a Mars rover is slower, stupider and clumsier then a geologist.

And, above all, humans can experience things- appreciate true beauty. If it were not for expanding those goals, we might as well all kill ourselves tomorrow...

EDIT:

We did it with help of course, but I do think it is a fair argument to suggest our entry into both of those wars were critical for the success of the Allies. :tiphat:

The Allies would not have won without the US, but the US would not have won without the allies.

 

[Zachstar]

Lets put it in another way to prevent a big discussion. The US with the help of the allies achieved the goals declared in the declaration of war.

And yes I would trade you NASA for Free healthcare and a nation that values engineering and science and prioritizes healthcare. Because with our vast resources we would instantly become the shining wonder of the world. Right now all we are known for is Stupidity,Rednecks,Guns and Repubs, Blowing **** up, and vast amounts of natural resources.

The only reason the rest of the world has not ignored us is because they need the massive amounts of minerals we produce. Those exports are the only thing that keeps Joe sixpack able to watch the football game rather than running a community farm. Our situation is bad. VERY VERY bad. As unless we develop fusion in the next 10-20 years. Energy costs are going to result in more and more mine closeures and the resulting recession will cost Joe Sixpack greatly. So with that in mind Joe does not care if money goes into his child competing against those from Japan,China,India etc... Rather than Manned Spacefight.

 

[Hartmann]

Let me to rewrite the question

Is manned sailing between america and europe in 1492 a worthy investment to begin with?

..Yes! :lol:

 

[insanity]

He who complains about life being "nagging", is probably not alive himself.



The Allies would not have won without the US, but the US would not have won without the allies.

On Earth living is quite lovely, in space these concerns become very nagging.

Also, I agree with your point about our mutual need for each-other in both world wars... I knew I was going to catch some slack for that statement, but I stand by it- this country has done amazing things in the history of human endeavors, but regardless, people think we are dumb and fat.

And I agree that currently the machines aren't as capable as people; but those are gaps we can bridge with time. Like I said, until I know where we are going, how we are going to get there, and what we are going to do when we get (remember, all we did on the moon was plant some flags, drive a glamorized cart, and take some rocks). there I'm not going to be convinced that manned space flight is a worthy investment of either time and money.

I don't buy Mars as being a worthwhile place to put our species (any sustained human presence on Mars is going to require resources, some of which will have to come from Earth), nor do I see a need for a lunar outpost. Nothing in this statement denies NASA the ability to do science, I'm all for sending the to investigate and learn about the nature of the universe.

If, in the future, we can terraform a planet and we can reach places beyond our solar system where our species could actually benefit and be able to do it in a realistic time-frame, then I'd start to see value in it. Until then, I think the money we spend on putting men in space should go to something that can deliver actual results.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Let me to rewrite the question

Is manned sailing between america and europe in 1492 a worthy investment to begin with?

..Yes! :lol:

It's different. With sailing across the Atlantic there was a goal with benefits (a new route to India for the spice trade). We don't have a 'space india' to go to with the promise of tangible benefits, nor did the Europeans have the ability to build robots to sail the ocean and do their trading for them.

 

[rodion_herrera]

If you look at CNN's new website there's a section called 'Technology' (scroll down the page). There's a headline of Ares I-X Launch, and right beside it are three other "launches" of another kind, 'Uncharted: Among Thieves', 'Halo 3', and 'Dead Space'. It's kind of funny that such an historically important launch seems to be in the same category as a computer game launch.

-RODION

 

[Urwumpe]

Still, it is the same, when you stay in technology. The chance to find a route to India was small, the risks high, the investments painful.

Is there really nothing in space that is of worth of us? The biggest reason against spaceflight is not, what we can't find in space, but that it is extremely expensive to get it out of space. It is a discussion about economical and technological impossibility, and that is a discussion that ends usually with somebody having to attempt it first to find out that it is indeed possible.

Who would have believed in 1492 that one day, producing goods in China and ship them with titanic ships to Europe will be cheaper than producing the same goods in Europe.

And so I see it with spaceflight - if you don't even attempt it, you can't find out WHAT is possible. Sending humans to Mars seems like a stupid expensive when compared to robots, but still, 12 humans have found out more about the moon in a few hours of time, than many robots in decades.Robots are fine for repetitive tasks, which require no or only little understanding of the subject. Humans, even with minimal training, can do much more and work way more effective. Many robotic probes have missed features like the Genesis rock or orange soil. Humans had been able to change the program, for reacting on such discoveries.

 

[Moonwalker]

Right now all we are known for is Stupidity,Rednecks,Guns and Repubs, Blowing **** up, and vast amounts of natural resources.

Uhm... not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8qtO9hu97g

:rofl:

PS: I like that guy, hickok45. He is a teacher. And he loves guns, just like a lot of Americans do but I think as long as you do use guns the way hickok45 does it it's interesting and funny. Watch his videos. It's actually entertaining (maybe I have to change my mind regarding guns for private use).

 

[Urwumpe]

Despite the entertainment factor...weapons are no toys. And you will learn to agree to me, when the guy who thinks that weapons are not for being handled responsibly, is walking behind you, his weapon accidentally armed and often swinging in your direction.

I personally prefer people who treat any weapon like it is: Potentially deadly.

 

[Zachstar]

Let me to rewrite the question

Is manned sailing between america and europe in 1492 a worthy investment to begin with?

..Yes! :lol:

Um yes because they knew of the spice trade at the time. The thought was that the world was alot smaller and that going around the world for a bit would land you in prime trading locations and back.

And while the cost was high. It was not extreme. The three ships used were not even that big. And vastly sucked compared to the navy at the time.

Today a mars trip is 2-3 hundred billion dollars minimum.

 

[kevinvr]

Every year my 3rd graders study our solar system. I try get them all excited about space and space travel which isn't difficult because a 3rd grader is excited aboaut everything, specially if they can draw it or make a model of it. I'm hoping that some of them might at least have a positive attitude to space and spaceflight as they progress through school to university etc.
Maybe a rich Paraguayan will also get to be a Space tourist just like a rich South African did.
Joe sixpack may have no interest in it, but adventure Andy, Nick nerd, Eric explorer and Sally Spacegirl sure do and they'd all love to take robby robot with them to do the menial,dirty and dangeous tasks

 

[Moonwalker]

I personally prefer people who treat any weapon like it is: Potentially deadly.

Well, a car or a knife also is potentielly deadly. Even your hands are and I think you handle them carefully

But I know what you mean. That's what I actually think as well. But I had to change my mind and I don't think hickock45 is using guns in an irresponsible way. Also, on his piece of land he can actually shoot as much as he wants to (even more because he has the right by law). He seems trustworthy and for sure isn't anything but a moron, walking behind you, his weapon accidentally armed and often swinging in your direction. He is a teacher and I bet a popular one. And I have to admit that while visiting him I certainly wouldn't be reluctant to try a pumpkin as well :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

And while the cost was high. It was not extreme. The three ships used were not even that big. And vastly sucked compared to the navy at the time.

Today a mars trip is 2-3 hundred billion dollars minimum.

While the US Department of Defense costs 2000 billion per year.


Also three ships had been no small investment at that time, even the kings did not own all ships of their large fleets, but had been result of feudalism. On the second journey, Columbus already sailed with 17 ships.

The Spanish Armada, about 100 years after Columbus, had 22 warships of the Spanish Royal Navy and 108 converted merchant vessels. and was still considered the biggest task force in history for a long time.

 

[Hartmann]

Um yes because they knew of the spice trade at the time. The thought was that the world was alot smaller and that going around the world for a bit would land you in prime trading locations and back.

And while the cost was high. It was not extreme. The three ships used were not even that big. And vastly sucked compared to the navy at the time.

Today a mars trip is 2-3 hundred billion dollars minimum.

The cost was extreme for spain because had little resources after hundred of years war and was hard to convince the kings to expend the money and resources in the travel.

the thing can change if some valuable minerals are discovered in the moon or mars ,and science and tech return could be the new spices market. ( iron, helium-3, titanium, uranium..)

The budget now is high, but nothing compared with the military in the world

 

[insanity]

The cost was extreme for spain because had little resources after hundred of years war and was hard to convince the kings to expend the money and resources in the travel.

the thing can change if some valuable minerals are discovered in the moon or mars ,and science and tech return could be the new spices market. ( iron, helium-3, titanium, uranium..)

The budget now is high, but nothing compared with the military in the world

And we could develop sophisticated robots that mine the minerals, build transportation networks for the robots to get the minerals back, and still manage to explore the solar system and beyond. This approach requires a minimum amount of consumables, has a high degree of flexibility, and still benefits the human race. Until we can put people somewhere they can survive by themselves and are capable of doing it in a reasonable time-frame, I see no practical use in putting humans in space (somewhere where living becomes a huge chore because we were not designed for 0gs).

I want to continue exploration and our understanding of the universe, but we're moving into an era where it is more practical to do with machines we create then doing it with people.

 

[Ark]

The budget isn't remotely high, it's not even keeping pace with inflation. They're being asked to accomplish Apollo-level and greater tasks at a fraction of Apollo's budget.

 

[Zachstar]

We already know that just a single asteroid can contain trillions worth of minerals. But Joe sixpack would have to spend half a trillion to have any hope of even a billion dollars worth of platinum returned.

And that is with a low gravity well asteroid not the moon.

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

And we could develop sophisticated robots that mine the minerals, build transportation networks for the robots to get the minerals back, and still manage to explore the solar system and beyond. This approach requires a minimum amount of consumables, has a high degree of flexibility, and still benefits the human race. Until we can put people somewhere they can survive by themselves and are capable of doing it in a reasonable time-frame, I see no practical use in putting humans in space (somewhere where living becomes a huge chore because we were not designed for 0gs).

I want to continue exploration and our understanding of the universe, but we're moving into an era where it is more practical to do with machines we create then doing it with people.

When it comes to mineral extraction robotic all the way...

But think about it folks.. What do you need to power a vasimr that can haul over 200 tons of lightly refined Platinum ore? Fusion... And with fusion you can already open a mess of new mines on earth that create real jobs for joe sixpack at a fraction of the cost. Use part of that fusion power to power algae farms that produce biodiesel and youve basically given people mining jobs for a century.

I do see a use in putting people on the moon however. If fusion has been developed and a reasonable set of uses can be performed. On the moon you have a little bit of gravity so you can begin to experiment with year long stays. A small compex can be set up that has the inhabitants running experiments and extracting water and other materials from the lunar crust. The cost with VASIMR would be in the low hundreds of billions range and has a clear and useful mission that constitutes a small step towards a brighter future.

But I hear so many talk about bringing back fission and trying to ignore that it is a political impossibility. Or ignoring the costs associated in proving how safe it supposedly is. Or saying we need to make mars a priority while children go to class in a closet. Its madness.

 

[JamesG]

From a practical standpoint, once we really try mineral extraction from the Moon and elsewhere, people will have to follow. The work itself will be done by robots, or more accurately telerobotics, and with physics being what they are, that means that there is a specific range that humans need to be, even the moon is far enough away that you will need operators and maintainers on site.

Ideally, and ultimately, space industry will allow specialization that will be good for Earth. It will allow the planet to focus on what its good at (producing food, people, and as a natural habitat for its life forms), while moving the unhealthy industrial aspects of technological civilization to where it can't do any harm (you can't really pollute a airless, radiation blasted wasteland).

I think we here would all agree that that is the desired end-state of space flight. Its just figuring out how to get from here to there that is the hard part.