[Gerben42]

How do you see the future of space exploration? Should we set as a goal to make a permanent base on the Moon, or just stick to the Earth orbit? How about a hotel in space?

Or do you think it's all a big waste of money?

[helene_t]

I kinda liked the idea of the international space station. It's a nice symbolic way to celebrate the end of the cold war by exploring the space together with Russia, instead of in competition with them.

On the other hand, space flight (except for sending communication satelites into orbit), especially manned space flight, is probably relatively expensive in relation to it's results in terms of scientific progress. So it could certainly be argued that the money is better spent elsewhere.

[Blofeld]

I think that we should push for more spaceflight. Only by having more small-scale operations first will we ever get to the large-scale things that are likely to be genuinely useful. So even if in the short term things like a moon base are a waste of money (actually a moon base probably wouldn't be, if properly used for research), the experience gained will be worth it.

[the saint]

IF we stopped fighting wars we would have more than enough cash for space flight.

[cherdano]

Manned space flight seems like a horrible waste of money to me.

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on Apr 21 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

Manned space flight seems like a horrible waste of money to me.

Gasoline burning engines are a horrible waste of resources (=money).

20 Billion dollars to send a ship to Mars is money spent on developing cutting edge technology as well as paying the salaries of highly trained technical personnel. It is also an endeavor worthy of expanding the human spirit whereas taking your gas guzzling SUV to the corner store to buy potato chips is no effort but worthy of an expanding waistline.

[han]

cherdano, on Apr 21 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

Manned space flight seems like a horrible waste of money to me.

To me too.

[the saint]

Hannie, on Apr 21 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 21 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

Manned space flight seems like a horrible waste of money to me.

To me too.

Where is your sense of endeavour and wonder?

Sending a man to Mars is something that could unite humanity in wonder, rather than all this fractious divison we seem to have at the moment. 20 Billion dollars is absolute peanuts compared to the US defence budget...

[Rain]

You know what's funny?

Apparently singapore wants to compete to be the world's launching pad for tourist space flights.

Maybe it'll be located in Sentosa, conveniently beside the brand new casinos.
Maybe we'll build a brand new island called "Space Island" just for the space flights.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Apr 21 2006, 03:46 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 21 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

Manned space flight seems like a horrible waste of money to me.

To me too.

we can't know if this is so or not... we have to actually make the attempt before we can say whether or not it was wasted... i doubt the effort can be held in check for long, even if it should be, because man seems to be bitten with the wanderlust bug

[han]

Arend didn't say that space research or research in general was a waste of money, just that manned space flight is. Give us 20 billion dollars and we'll find other research projects that will be far more interesting.

Of course, what a researcher finds interesting may not agree with what the general public finds interesting.

[Gerben42]

Anyway the USA spent $420,700,000,000 on military in 2005, more than the GDP of all but 16 countries (17th Belgium - 18th Switzerland) and more than $1000 per capita. This must be the world's largest money pit!

Anyway I think the future of space flight should be focussed on getting resources out from nearby Solar System bodies like the moon and asteroids. Many asteroids would be a miner's dream. They are not differentiated which means that the metals are not mostly stuck in the core as in the Earth but they are everywhere.

[han]

I see, we should have manned space flight, because there are other, much more wasteful things going on? That's quite an argument. "We should send humans to mars because a politician is spending $7000 on her hair"

I agree that a lot of money is wasted. But there is a lot of serious useful research out there that has trouble finding sufficient funds.

The other argument is "let's do something silly that's really really hard". We'll get a lot of smart people to work on it and pay those, and surely there will be scientific innovations when we do this.

There are lots of hard problems out there in any field of science, including astronomy. Putting people on mars has little to do with science, more with public relations. Let's spend the money on serious science.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Apr 22 2006, 09:25 AM, said:

I agree that a lot of money is wasted. But there is a lot of serious useful research out there that has trouble finding sufficient funds.

this might be (probably is) true, but it doesn't follow that by not attempting manned space flight we will spend more on "useful research" ... so i don't think it's a particularly good argument to say that we should forego manned space flight until we allocate "sufficient funds" to research needed here, since we can't know when (or if) that allocation will occur

Quote

The other argument is "let's do something silly that's really really hard". We'll get a lot of smart people to work on it and pay those, and surely there will be scientific innovations when we do this.

who made that other argument? and, in your opinion, is the word "silly" somewhat subjective?

Quote

There are lots of hard problems out there in any field of science, including astronomy. Putting people on mars has little to do with science, more with public relations. Let's spend the money on serious science.

perhaps you're right that the motives of such an endeavor would favor public relations over scientific research/exploration... but there are probably people who would argue with you about the relative merits of one "serious science" over another

i agree with you that such things as health care, research into how to cure the diseases that plaque us, etc, seem to be a more useful allocation of funds... unfortunately, the ones with the money (and decision making power) don't always agree with one another, much less with those of us who have neither

[pclayton]

I don't want to see my tax dollars going toward this.

If its worthwhile to explore Mars or other planets, or galaxies, corporate America (or India, or Europe, or China, or whatever...) will write the check.

And for those that want to plunk down down $20 MM to catch a ride, I think thats just plain silly.

[mike777]

I want to see my tax dollars go towards this.

1) I think the combination of some worthwhile basic research coming out of it and inspiring dreams is worth the money spent.
2) There is some basic science that says the more dispersed a species is the greater chance for survival.
3) Corporate and oversees monies are flowing into space research.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments that folks need to recognize:

1. Gravity wells are for kids. I'm strongly in favor of space flight and exploration. With this said and done, the moon / mars don't offer all that much compared to the asteroid belts and LaGrange points.

2. Privatizing space flight is highly problematic for a number of reasons. The most significant is also one of the most basic. If you drop something, it falls down. If you drop something from a very high place, it hits VERY hard. Any organization capable of moving things arround up there immediate gets weapons of mass destruction capability that puts our current nuclear stockpiles to shame.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Apr 22 2006, 09:41 AM, said:

(snip)

The most significant is also one of the most basic. If you drop something, it falls down. If you drop something from a very high place, it hits VERY hard.

Apparently governments aren't vulnerable to falling objects

How much junk do we have orbiting the earth right now? When things do fall hard from space, it is a very unfortunate random event; fortunately the population on earth is still relatively sparse.

And a government that creates a technology that makes nukes obsolete is safer than a corporation that develops it?

Somehow putting faith in a corporation to develop these systems seems more beneficial than governements.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Apr 22 2006, 09:03 PM, said:

How much junk do we have orbiting the earth right now? When things do fall hard from space, it is a very unfortunate random event; fortunately the population on earth is still relatively sparse.

I think that you miss my point:

Right now, we have any number of satellites sitting up in orbit, spinning round and round and round. However, all of those objects were designed to stay in orbit. More over, when those orbits do inevitably decay, the satellites usually burn up on re-entry. There are a few exceptions - I'm sure many people recall the whole issues with Sylab and its reactor - however, these are few and far between.

I'm worried about something much more deliberate. What if someone decided to start dropping very large rocks, specifically targetting population centers? (Robert Heinlin wrote a famous science fiction story called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" based on just this premise)

[han]

Jimmy wrote:

Quote

``I agree that a lot of money is wasted. But there is a lot of serious useful research out there that has trouble finding sufficient funds.''


this might be (probably is) true, but it doesn't follow that by not attempting manned space flight we will spend more on "useful research" ... so i don't think it's a particularly good argument to say that we should forego manned space flight until we allocate "sufficient funds" to research needed here, since we can't know when (or if) that allocation will occur.

Agreed, maybe I should rephrase my position as "I would prefer it if the money invested in these projects would be relocated to projects that are focussed on seeking answers to scientific questions."

Quote

``The other argument is "let's do something silly that's really really hard". We'll get a lot of smart people to work on it and pay those, and surely there will be scientific innovations when we do this.''

who made that other argument? and, in your opinion, is the word "silly" somewhat subjective?

Jimmy, you can read, Al_U_Card made that argument:

Quote

20 Billion dollars to send a ship to Mars is money spent on developing cutting edge technology as well as paying the salaries of highly trained technical personnel.

And yes, "silly" is of course highly subjective. It is my opinion, just like most of what I write (well, and it was meant as somewhat provocative).