[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).

[cherdano]

mike777, on Apr 22 2006, 07:29 PM, said:

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.

1) This just isn't true IMHO. Spin-off from space flight development is vastly overstated, it's very marginal and in no relation to the costs. Experiments done in manned space flights are way too expensive and add very little benefit compared to experiments done via unmanned space flight or zero-gravity simulators. If you want scientists understand what mars is like, there is no benefit of sending men close to it compared to sending a couple of probes.
2) Great. We spend a billion so that if the earth crashes, 4 people in a space station can survive until they run out of food.
3) Huh? Anyway, an edge for the US then if it spends its money on unmanned space flight and other research instead.

Arend

[mike777]

1) Yes the space shuttle flights were pretty worthless in terms of research spinoffs, I do think going for Mars will spinoff more stuff.
2) Well maybe living on Mars or farther out(other systems) may help. .
3) Of course keep monies going into unmanned and with competition from corp and oversees, will push us all to improve faster and cheaper.

Ya, I am one of those who think you scientist/inventor boys and girls are going to make the next 45 years seem like majic compared to the last 45 years.

[han]

Dream on Mike.

[luke warm]

mike does have a point, though... some technology of today would seem simply amazing to the people of 50 years ago, and to those of 100 years ago some would probably seem to be magical

they grew a bladder from a cell... transplants with no rejections, anyone? if a bladder, why not a heart; an ear; a liver; hell, why not a spinal column?

medical science and ethics are soon gonna run smack into one another... imo, the money will win (as usual)

[Gerben42]

Quote

mike does have a point, though... some technology of today would seem simply amazing to the people of 50 years ago, and to those of 100 years ago some would probably seem to be magical

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Arthur C. Clarke -

[han]

SARCASM ALERT!

You know what, let's build ourselves a new, perfect planet!

It's perhaps not possible now, but if we put a lot of tax-money into it then soon it will. And in the meantime we'll have lots of interesting scientific inventions. After all, we'll put the smartest people on this project.

SARCASM OFF

There is a big difference between trying to grow a blatter from a cell and trying to build a settlement on Mars. Not every project that you can dream off is worthwhile from a scientific point of view.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Apr 24 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Not every project that you can dream off is worthwhile from a scientific point of view.

i agree 100%... i'm just glad i'm not in a position to judge what is or isn't 'worthwhile'... i'm too ignorant of too many sciences to even attempt it