Apart from all the commercial spin offs.
Sitting our entire civilisation on a single planet or even solar system is putting all our eggs in one basket. I for one don't want to be a 65 million year old fossil with the cockroaches trying to figure out what petty intrigues left us planet bound when we have the technology to spread to other planets.
As a feat in itself not many people can claim to have orbited another object in space or walked on its surface. Far cooler and useful then yearly sports comps.
Essentially review how much money and resources is thrown at movies and sports before claiming space travel is a waste. For instance a single movie costs more then sending a robot to mars.
Talk split into a new thread.
Last edited by Beskar; 05-22-2013 at 00:13.
Please - we are nowhere near getting off this planet - we can't even sustain a small Bio-Dome, let alone terraform Mars, we can't produce effective radiation shields (that we can power) to protect the colony, and we can't launch large payloads into space.
The failure of the shuttle program has demonstrated just how far we would need to go, and that's before we ever even talk about getting out the Solar System. Unless something changes in our fundamental understanding of Physics we've basically established that FTL is impossible.
That's why we haven't been visited by Aliens, they can't get off their own planets.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"Failure of the shuttle program"?
The number of inventions resulting directly or indirectly from the shuttle program is to numerous to count. It was the defining project of the technology which created the age we live in now.
It was a complete success.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
The space shuttle program generated a lot of technology as did the Apollo program before it.
The physics hasn't changed. But we've had the technology to go to Mars for quite some time.
A lot of the reasons we havn't come down to petty intrigues such as special interest group lobbying and pork barreling.
The cost of fuel to get a vehicle into orbit represents only a fraction of the total cost. Most of it is in manufacturing according to old methods in particular political hot zones. A lot of the space age tech and manufacturing is still stuck in the sixties.
Whilst NASA could be more efficient if it wasn't used as a pork barrel resource. It could obviously do more with more money. It's budget is about 5% of what is spent on sports. For instance the top ten sportsmen could privately pay to go to space out of their earnings... In short we pay more to adverts of Just Do It rather then going to space by a factor of twenty.
So Mad Men marketing spin for the win.
The purpose of the Shuttle Program was to create a viable re-usable space vehicle, but the program never got out of the testing phase - two shuttles exploded in flight and killed their crews, and it was demonstrated that disposable vehicles were more economical.
Failure.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Never know until you test.
Speaking of marketing spin:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home..._spinoffs.html
vast amounts of the "modern" life style (Mobile Phones, Personal Computers, GPS, scratch resistant glass, Memory Foam, Shoe Insoles, Cordless Tools, Water Filters, LED's and many many more) were either a direct result of the space program or were derivatives of technology that was
this alone means the space program was worth it
as for the Shuttle program - 135 missions were carried out with 2 accidents - they got their moneys worth
The problem is a successful vehicle to travel across space to another planet, would be very much like the planet we live on. The time and distance basically requires a perpetual motion machine; that never ends well.
Ja-mata TosaInu
I am so sick of the nostalgia that people constantly bring up when we start going down this path. Oh yeah, yeah there's been lots of technology spun off from them and you if you really closely you can see just how much influence there has been everywhere in society. But the fact is that none of what they did seems to have a direct impact on my life right now, everything that they did would have done eventually in time, and the cost of their actions has been tremendous when you look at the full history of it all.
I dare one person to give a satisfactory answer to the question:
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 05-22-2013 at 03:59.
Tongue in check considering you are writing using a Latin alphabet.
I doubt you can mount a coherent argument without using a Latin alphabet or Babelfish to translate to Chinese or Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Last edited by Papewaio; 05-22-2013 at 07:01.
Life of Brian... my bad... By you're still a naughty boy.![]()
The benefits have yet to show but in the meantime it keeps really smart people busy. I am way too dumb for it but science should always reach out imho. Moon-landing was a revelation of what is possible in the future so it was not useless at all.
Some people seem to think that innovation and scientific progress is something that happens in garages or in laboratories, with the aim of inventing something new.
That's not how it happens.
What drives scientific progress are huge projects into new territory. The moon landing, the space shuttle, the LHC and major wars are such projects. They are what forces progress to happen. Thus, the real aim of such a project is never its stated aim. The main benefit and aim of the moon landing wasn't to put people on the moon, it was the zillion inventions and discoveries that happened because of it.
So, to label such projects as failures because they failed to achieve its stated aim is an attitude that will bring our technological progress to a halt, and if that attitude had dominated through history, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Ah but there could be plenty of ambitious projects on and focus on our earth. Also the LHC for one I'm less against also because it actually learns us more than shooting another moon rocket (the LHC probably contributes more to possible eventual space travel and really usefull technology that actually could help us, for example in the field of Energy production). Launching Satellites and research on that does so as well. One of my main gripes also has to do with the other thread it was originally posted in, namely the heritage it was build on. (I didn't post it out of the blue...)
I have seen the stats, but I can't find them now. The Shuttle program never "broke even", which in this case means that the program cost more in time and money than disposable rockets for the same number of missions over the same time period.
If the Shuttle program had been extended to generation 2 and a larger fleet (say 20-30) shuttles had been built with proper escape chutes for the crew and a quicker and cheaper turn around, then the program would have been worth it. As it is, the Shuttle program basically never got out of the preliminary testing phase before it was abandoned.
Cube is right about the "Big picture" but right now we're in a developmental cul-de-sac that the physicist have stuck us in. General Relativity needs to be re-written to allow FTL or we need a power source an order of magnitude more efficient than Cold Fusion to be able to create wormholes.
We also need effective electromagnetic shielding to protect crews from cosmic rays before we can send them to Mars.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
I'm saying that if the project would have focused on Sattelite lauching it would have made more sense and more uses than the focus being on manned spaceflight. Especially to the moon. Satellite project that map for example deforestation and desertification have more use than someone planting a man on the moon. That doesn't mean it should have been the priority though. The LHC is one I can stand behind more than both afore mentioned ones. But I think there could have been many focal points for great government funded research projects that could have paid of more, been more in line with what we need and would have been more constructive to our future. Especially those deluded that we need to be able to escape this earth as fast as possible is a joke.
“Lets stay on our Tuchanka a while longer I'd say” With or without thresher maw?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Even if you ignore the 'let's not go extinct' aspects, the commercial spin-off benefits of space exploration have already vastly surpassed the costs that all governments have spent on it.
Here's direct NASA spin-offs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
That doesn't even include major stuff like satellite communication, surveying, and weather monitoring technologies. Next time you use GPS or Google Maps to find your way someplace, thank human space exploration.
Last edited by TinCow; 05-22-2013 at 20:04.
Bookmarks