What's new

Reenergizing the human space effort. (1 Viewer)

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
And unfortunately since the distribution problems are primarily political in nature, there is no clear way to solve them.
Partly, yes, I agree. But, there is little effort made by anyone to truly help those who need it, why, money or the lack there of. Politics are driven my the all-mightly dollar.
Peace Out~:D
 

Julie K

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
1,962
Maybe not, but it would help.

Probably not. Relief funds and projects don't help unless one is willing to topple the root cause of the distribution problems. Those problems are not caused by the lack of funds to drive trucks or fly planes of food across a few thousand miles.

Jack put it best. Our survival depends on getting off the planet.
 

Leo Hinze

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 15, 1999
Messages
222
The interesting thing here is that nobody is saying space exploration is a bad thing. Lucky for us, Luddites are not usually big into home theater:)
Personally, I can't respond to some of the anti-spaceflight arguments without talking about politics and maybe even religion.
For example, I agree with Julie that feeding the starving population of the world has nothing to do with the ability to produce enough food, but is more a political problem of distribution.
I think space exploration is a good thing. It gives people, and even the nation, a tangible goal - something to strive for. It also helps to satifsy our curiosity. You never know what you may find or invent. What if people had decided to spend money feeding the peasants instead of outfitting ships to explore the earth? Humanity might have never created this place of liberty called the USA.
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
Rather than cut a program that has benefits for all humanity, why not get your billions of dollars from scrapping the arms budgets and dropping million dollar missiles on a pile of rocks.

The starvation issue is entirely political (and therefore beyond the scope of this forum). We could do far more for the planet by cutting our consumption of natural resources or actually working as a whole to manage the world's resources, but until we have a world body with the clout to instate and enforce a mandate that benefits the entire world population, we will continue to squander billions on weaponry and warfare that is of no benefit to anyone but arms manufacturers, morticians, and insurance companies.
 

RogerB

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
401
NASA's budget for 2003 is over $15 billion. I'm quite sure there are many countries without political issues with the US that could benefit from some of this money. Heck, we have starving kids right here in our own country that we need to feed.

24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. 75% of them are children under 5. In the time it takes you to type "there's nothing we can do", one more person dies.

Of course, there's money being wasted in many other places - not just NASA - but the topic is Space.

Look: We have no choice but to explore and colonize space. It's not a luxury. It's not even an option. If the human race is to survive, it must spread its presence throughout the Solar System--and then prepare for crossing the interstellar void.
Huh?! We DO have a choice. What are we going to do, conquer and destroy every planet in our solar system and beyond? Take care of what you've got. Take care of your neighbor.

No, $15 billion won't save the world but neither will a man on Mars.
 

Kevin Coleman

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 3, 1999
Messages
495
All I can say is some of you are very closed minded and flat out wrong. I find it kind of scary that people still think this way. I agree completely with Jack and Peter.
Our civilization will not survive without a frontier, it will stagnate and die. This is a fact.
Kevin C. :)
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
Not only that, the Sun around which our planet revolves has but a finite lifetime. Far better to spread the human presence among the stars in order for the species to survive.

Roger, your "argument" is unsupportable. HUD's annual budget dwarfs NASA's. Finally, if we are not to move forward until all our problems "here on Earth" are solved, we won't go anywhere. But the spinoffs from the manned and unmanned space efforts alone more than justify the programs. Spending money on space is, as Peter noted, spending money here on Earth--with the added benefit of assuring the species' eventual survival.
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
And, also, where do you get this nonsensical notion about "conquering and destroying" other planets in the Solar System? Wait. Don't answer that. I don't care.
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
Until we develop some sort of 'warp speed' type transportation, space travel will be useless. The planets in our system cannot support life unless you want to live in a big box, no thanks. Sending guys to Mars will be as useless as sending guys to the moon.
Peace Out~:D
 

Danny R

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 2000
Messages
871
Until we develop some sort of 'warp speed' type transportation, space travel will be useless.
Your imagination is limited. I can think of many uses for manned exploration into space, even at only a fraction of light speed. And sending men to the moon was FAR from useless.
Besides, if we wait for "warp speed", then we will likely be waiting forever, unless you expect the laws of physics to miraculously change.
The fact of the matter is that we can get to other stars with today's technology. Orion or Daedalus style craft can get us up to a decent percentage of light speed to make interstellar travel possible in a human lifetime.
 

BrianW

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
2,563
Real Name
Brian
Sending guys to Mars will be as useless as sending guys to the moon.
Ron, if you think sending guys to the Moon was useless, then I just don't know what to say. Speaking only for myself, I'm glad we sent guys to the Moon just so I don't have to use a slide-rule and graph paper to do my job today. Indeed, my increased productivity, thanks in large part to the technological spin-offs of the space program, allows me to have a much greater positive impact on society than I otherwise could. This is a good thing whether I'm inventing home theater gadgets, working on an infrastructure for higher-bandwidth communications, or, yes, feeding the hungry.
 

Julie K

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
1,962
For those who think the space program is useless or a waste, or that sending a man to the Moon was worthless, please check out this site.
It lists some of the spinoffs. I think it's important to list some, so we know just how beneficial the space program has been in so many areas, from improved medical devices to enriched baby formula to better snow tires to better life rafts to pool purification without chemicals, and so many others.
Please take some time to read this. You will see how much the space program has enriched and enhanced our lives, even life-saving and environmentally friendly. Many of these are the direct result of the Apollo mission.
And as for costs:
"Out of a $1.5 trillion budget, less than 1% is spent on the entire space program! It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth."
And that does not include the spinoffs mentioned earlier.
 

Matt Stryker

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 12, 2000
Messages
1,308
Location
Land of the rolling tide
Real Name
Matt
As mentioned before, all of the great civilizations of the world were great explorers, and all of them had problems. The world is not perfect, neither are governments. But overpopulation/overutilization of resources is going to become a serious problem long before the sun consumes the earth...

We must explore and colonize other planets simply because this one will soon be unable to support the great mass of humanity upon it. The promise of colonizing Mars, Europa, and worlds beyond is increased real estate, increased (and possibly new kinds of) resources, and the grandeur of exploring "beautiful places" (Dave Scott).
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
Unless things change drastically down here first, I doubt we will ever see the day of space travel in a major way. We need to focus on this planet first, then on space travel. Other wise we will not be here long enough to get to space travel.
As far as useless, I was referring to finding a new planet to live on. We know Mars in uninhabitable as we did the moon. No need to go if we are looking for a new home.
Peace Out~:D
 

Kevin Coleman

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 3, 1999
Messages
495
Ron,

Not to be rude but you really should take some time to educate yourself on this issue; specifically the feasibility

of colonizing and eventually terraforming Mars.

Kevin C.
 

Grant B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2000
Messages
3,209
NASA is the most completely worthless organization on earth or for any other planet for that matter. The only way to go to another planet is to eliminate NASA completely.

Working for a Defense Contractor and for Nasa, I found the Army & Navy almost Sane compared to Nasa. It's been 20 years since anyone in Nasa has done anything with science. Basically they are a watchdog that looks over your shoulder. If something is Successful, NASA's name is all over it; if it blows up...Lockheed Martin had a failure.

Before it got axed, the Advance Shuttle Rocket Motor(ASRM) had a kickoff meeting in the building I work at. The total amount of people working at Lockheed on the program was under 100 people (techs up to the Director). At the meeting, a 600 seat auditorium was overflowing because of all the NASA people which was overseeing it. It got axed because they ran out of money (Oh surprise!)

So basically You had 5 people looking over 1 person (besides all the management from Lockheed)

An engineer I worked with that started at TRW, once told me that she worked on calculating the trajectories of some the earliest flights.

Basically all the science and engineering for the entire launch was done by 3 people in the days before computers and calculators.

That would take 1000s today and we can thank NASA (WPA for the 00s & above)
 

Danny R

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 2000
Messages
871
What is "uninhabitable?" Antarctica could fit that definition, but we've been living there for years on end now.

You might not want to live in a "box", but that doesn't mean many folks would mind it. Our navy keeps folks isolated in small cramped space for half a year at a time. And as far as I'm concerned, places like New York City are just big boxes of a sort as well.
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
Let me add here that a lot of my resentment of this space program comes directly from my brother who worked at Boeing on the space station, my father who still does and my father-in-law who worked for Rockwell (I think) directly on the Orbiter's tiles.
The HUGE amount of waste is unbelievable and pisses me off. My tax dollars wasted to a major degree. I have seen and heard first hand. As it stands right now with me, the space program is a complete joke and needs a complete overhaul starting with our government. I am not going to say more as it could get ugly and I don't want the thread to get locked.
Peace Out~:D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top