Space Programme: Overrated or Best thing since sliced bread?

[HoreTore]

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.

[Moros]

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.

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...)

[HoreTore]

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...)

First you say that the shuttle program is bad because it's "shooting another moon rocket".

You then say that you favour research on launching satellites.


You honestly don't see the contradiction in supporting one over the other, seeing as they are the exact same thing?

[Moros]

First you say that the shuttle program is bad because it's "shooting another moon rocket".

You then say that you favour research on launching satellites.


You honestly don't see the contradiction in supporting one over the other, seeing as they are the exact same thing?

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

That's actually what you accomplish by launching space shuttles.

That, and providing your sneakers with more comfortable fabric, of course.

[Brenus]

“Lets stay on our Tuchanka a while longer I'd say” With or without thresher maw?

[TinCow]

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.

[Moros]

Why would there be no commercial gain on other large research practices, based on earth? Why would most not have also come from satellite projects either? And why does one suggest putting the man on the moon was essential to satellite launching, it wasn't? Do you launch people with satellites? No.
(Edit: most investments in research and technology end up, making more profit than the initial cost, that's what investments are for)

Are better sneekers also a good excuse why no-one cared about what happened to the V1 and V2 project leaders after WWII?

Also Brennus, Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species whose progeny is supposed to make other planets their home. We'll get one here in time as well.

[Brenus]

"Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species" I had noticed, thanks. Gave me a lot of sweat in Mass Effect the first... Specially one on a icy planet...

[HoreTore]

Why would there be no commercial gain on other large research practices, based on earth? Why would most not have also come from satellite projects either? And why does one suggest putting the man on the moon was essential to satellite launching, it wasn't? Do you launch people with satellites? No.
(Edit: most investments in research and technology end up, making more profit than the initial cost, that's what investments are for)

Are better sneekers also a good excuse why no-one cared about what happened to the V1 and V2 project leaders after WWII?

Also Brennus, Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species whose progeny is supposed to make other planets their home. We'll get one here in time as well.

Size equals speed. You'll find out a lot more a lot quicker about how to fling things into space if you try flinging something big with people in it than you will with small(er) satellites.

Then there's the issue of resources. A small, lower profile project will drown in the midst of others. A big, high profile one pushing the boundaries, on the other hand, is bound to draw in the very best human resources. And when you put the brains together, it will lead to all sorts of new discoveries and inventions.

Thirdly, most of the discoveries and inventions from project X will have no use in project X, but will find use elsewhere. Again, the bigger and more complex the project, the more inventions you get.

And lastly, the knowledge gained from the moon landing project was indeed absolutely crucial to satellite communications( and a zillion other things).

[TinCow]

Why would there be no commercial gain on other large research practices, based on earth? Why would most not have also come from satellite projects either? And why does one suggest putting the man on the moon was essential to satellite launching, it wasn't? Do you launch people with satellites? No.
(Edit: most investments in research and technology end up, making more profit than the initial cost, that's what investments are for)

Are better sneekers also a good excuse why no-one cared about what happened to the V1 and V2 project leaders after WWII?

Also Brennus, Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species whose progeny is supposed to make other planets their home. We'll get one here in time as well.

Uh... so basically you're saying that we could have created satellites without developing space technology?