Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Space Program
comicallyinsane
Veteran
I was wondering what everyone thinks of the space program. Should we keep heading toward the stars or not?
0
Comments
My concern is that it is very expensive and so far has failed to really live up to the hype. We appear to know so little about our own planet, particularly what lies beneath our Oceans and Seas. The idea that someday we may find another Planet that We humans can inhabit seems a little pointless.....since we are doing our very best to destroy the one We already inhabit.
Could the Billions of dollars spent by NASA be used for other more earthbound priorities...well the simple answer is YES....maybe one day, it will all be worth it???
Who has not at one time or another wanted to "Boldly go where no one has gone before"!!
Well since we as humans are destroying this planet maybe we should all just commit suicide right now and be done with it. Why bother even trying if we are just killers of the planet?
It's arguments like this one that make me wonder how we are ever going to progress. Focus on the negative and get negative. Focus on the positive and get positive.
Focus on neither an get Release.
Comic,
May not have made myself clear, I was giving a broad answer, specifically I believe wholeheartedly in Space exploration.......hopefully getting a Telescope for Christmas....always been fascinated......will try not to engage brain in Warp 9 next time before answering post!
You are quite right about the cost, Nick, but I think you underestimate the value and benefits.
It has been noted somewhere that we are the beneficiaries of technological and biological advances from the struggle to get into space, whereas, hitherto, such advances have always been as a result only of wars.
What is more, we would not be having this exchange had we not established world-wide communications networks.
You are quite right that the resources used to enable space exploration could be used elsewhere. It is a question of priorities which must be considered within the bigger picture of desired outcome. If the space budget were the only or the worst diversion of resources, I would say that it should wait. But that is far from the case. Money is spent on wars when people starve. Government build unnecessary monuments while hospitals and schools crumble.
It is my belief that space exploration has already proved beneficial and should be expanded.
That's funny, Abe.
I was thinking when I read this that I really had no thought for or against the Space Program.
But, it does seem kind of odd that we have people starving all over the world, people with no homes, no insurance, polluted water systems, polluted earth - and yet we're chasing stars that will do nothing to ease the suffering that currently exists on this planet.
Unless we're just looking for a new place to dump our garbage or unwanted inhabitants...
-bf
Or maybe one of those big things that looked like a giant turd that floats through space eating planets?
Damnit, Jim! I'm a doctor - not a proctologist!
-bf
British ban on sending people into space must end, say experts
· Benefits far outweigh the costs, panel concludes
· Need to invest £150m a year for next 20 years
Alok Jha, science correspondent
Wednesday October 19, 2005
The Guardian
Britain must overturn its decades-old policy of not sending people into space by joining international manned missions to the moon and Mars as the scientific benefits far outweigh the costs, according to a Royal Astronomical Society report.
In December last year the society commissioned three leading physicists to examine whether there was a scientific justification for human space flight, an activity that has traditionally been out of reach for UK scientists because of the policies of successive governments.
"We think it's now very timely for the UK government to re-evaluate its longstanding position on this question," said Frank Close of the University of Oxford, who led the study.
Prof Close said he and his colleagues had initially been sceptical of the scientific value of human space flight. "However, while fully recognising the technical challenge and the need for substantial investment, we have, nevertheless, been persuaded by the evidence ... that the direct involvement of humans in situ is essential if we are to pursue science of profound interest to humankind that can only be undertaken on the moon and Mars."
According to the report, a return to human space flight would need an investment of £150m a year over the next 20 years. Prof Close said the rewards were well worth the cost, citing the "inspirational effects on the young, recruiting the next generation of scientists and engineers, the general challenge to industry".
The government has shied away from funding manned space missions, arguing that robot probes such as Venus Express, due to be launched next week, are a more cost-effective way to explore the solar system. "The widely-held public perception is that robots can do much more than they actually can," said Prof Close. "They're very good at doing well-defined repetitive tasks, they're not good problem solvers."
Ken Pounds of the University of Leicester said manned space missions would help solve profound questions about the possibility of life on other planets. "Life on Earth is extremely robust, it occurs just about everywhere," he said. "It would really be remarkable if there was no life on Mars. To determine that negative is going to be a major programme - you can't just wander around with a couple of rovers and say, 'We haven't found anything, therefore there's no life on Mars'."
John Dudeney, the deputy director of the British Antarctic Survey, said the methods used for research at the poles of the Earth could be transferred to other planets. "There's some very interesting scientific questions that can be answered by taking cores from the surface of the moon and taking cores from the surface of Mars," he said. "On the moon, we can look at the early history of the sun, we can look at the early history of the Earth and how planets evolved. With Mars we have a planet which is cold and dead [but] it seems that it may have once been warm and wet and may have had life. Is it a history lesson for us about where our planet might be going?"
Prof Pounds said Britain needed to decide quickly whether it wanted to get involved with international manned space programmes. In December the government will decide whether to sign up to the European Space Agency's Aurora programme, an ambitious vision that aims to eventually put people on Mars.
Prof Pounds said the UK might also consider collaborations with American, Japanese or Chinese scientists in manned spaceflight. "If the other major nations of the world are involved, does the UK yet again want to be the one that's out of step?" said Prof Close. "If space science fiction is ever going to become science fact, now is the time."