Poll: Do you find space exploration *that* interesting or important?

[Tefal]

Thinking about it is different to planning a maned mission to Mars. Have we solved how long it would take to get to even the nearest star? No. Well then, lets solve that first before we start throwing cash away.

40-50 ish years iirc using a project Orion type craft.

 

[Twentyone]

Thinking about it is different to planning a maned mission to Mars. Have we solved how long it would take to get to even the nearest star? No. Well then, lets solve that first before we start throwing cash away.

Which is the whole point We wouldn't just launch a load of people into space without the technology so we need to start being more serious about it.

 

[Saltank]

This is looking quite promising. Makes space travel seem just that more ... feasible!

 

[jak731]

The argument that the money spent on space exploration would be better served feeding the poor doesn't have a leg to stand on. Just look how much more is spent on methods of killing one another:

I think this is cobbled together from a few different sources, eg world military spending:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Those figures match up with wiki.

As for the space budget I think it should probably be called the 'Science in space and human space exploration budget' as the us military itself launches many satellites, all pointing back down at Earth (some way more powerful than hubble most likely), and the revenue from gps systems is greater than $38 billion.

If you sum up the NASA budget and other government space budgets in this list it comes to $30 billion (list is from 2006)

http://www.thespacereport.org/resources/overview/space_budgets.php

The Apollo program is believed to have paid for itself 14 times over:

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_why_we_need_the_explorers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Science_and_engineering

 

[mushroomsoup]

Space exploration? Haha, what a silly idea!

I'd much rather spend millions bombing Libya.

 

[Brumboy]

2.

I'm not sure how people can say 1?

Putting space exploration a priority over...

The health service.
Medical research.
Energy research (fusion etc).
Conservation of the planet.

I think the above is more important that space exploration at the moment. Remember we've only been flying air planes for just over 100 years, and been travelling into space for 50 years. Considering we've been on the planet for around 150,000 years, we are still a very young species, and we are only just starting out with space exploration. No need to rush.

We need more space funding, but it shouldn't have priority over everything. If it did, I think it might actually be counter productive, considering the vast sums of money it takes to get into space. One less space flight for example could save £200m, think of what that money could do on other projects.



Rubbish.

This. We should use the money to improve things on earth first!

 

[jak731]

2.

I'm not sure how people can say 1?

Putting space exploration a priority over...

The health service.
Medical research.

Many of the zero g experiments on the ISS are researching to improve these.

Energy research (fusion etc).

The Apollo program produced the first practical fuel cell. Solar cells would probably be an unknown technology were it not for space exploration. Going further out into space requires even more novel technology as sunlight is too weak. Everything about going into space requires 'energy research'.

Conservation of the planet.

Seeing our fragile world from space has arguably created more conservationists than any other field:

(the atmosphere is so thin)

Pale blue dot

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

 

[mushroomsoup]

Almost every country in the world has a military, but few countries have space exploration or launch capabilities. So of course military spending will be more.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Almost every country in the world has a military, but few countries have space exploration or launch capabilities. So of course military spending will be more.

Yes, this is true but so disproportionately more? Some countries will naturally spend more than others on their military either due to size or their engagement in conflicts at home or around the World. The USA alone spends well over half a trillion on the military I believe so it's spending more on that by well over a factor of 10 than the whole worldwide budget for space exploration.

If you want to take a look then the spending of the top 9 countries in this regard in the World each spend more on their military than is spent the by the rest of the World on space expenditure - source.

 

[mushroomsoup]

That is why America is top dog in the world - its big, rich and powerful. China is also big and powerful and soon to be rich perhaps. The movers and shakers on the world stage are so because they're of their military, economic and cultural clout.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, are you saying we should all unite and not have wars and instead go into space holding hands?

That would be nice. But humans etc...

 

[semi-pro waster]

That is why America is top dog in the world - its big, rich and powerful. China is also big and powerful and soon to be rich perhaps. The movers and shakers on the world stage are so because they're of their military and economic clout.

China is already pretty rich, they hold huge amounts of American debt currently and the Yuan is arguably undervalued by a significant degree. However that's all a side point in the debate on military spending.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, are you saying we should all unite and not have wars and instead go into space holding hands?

That would be nice. But humans etc

No, I'm not saying we should all unite and hold hands going into space although I've now got a lovely mental image of Barack Obama and Hu Jintao skipping across the surface of the moon linking arms as they go - perhaps even playing tig before having a picnic, who knows.

What I am suggesting is that perhaps if we scaled back military spending by a couple of percent overall that we'd free up millions and millions to be able to spend on other things which might more directly benefit humankind - maybe space exploration will be in there, maybe it won't.

 

[PermaBanned]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, are you saying we should all unite and not have wars and instead go into space holding hands?

That would be nice. But humans etc...

That's not a reason. People can do anything they want to.

Alas, there is a difference between what we must become to survive and what we could become. It's up to us to make it happen.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Which is the whole point We wouldn't just launch a load of people into space without the technology so we need to start being more serious about it.

Yes, but 'space exploration' doesn't have anything intrinsically to do with scientific theory! Performing scientific experiments in space (to get away from interfering mavity) is one thing, flying a team to mars is another. To even get to the nearest star (which says nothing of there being habitable planets there) would take an inflight breeding programme of astronauts breeding and training astronauts!

Its like preparing for the big game and doing all the hard work but lacking the actual theories to ever actually play. Que 200 years into the future, and we have awesome space ready craft with deflector shields and bio domes but oh wait we still cant travel at significant speed..... ****

 

[PermaBanned]

Yes, but 'space exploration' doesn't have anything intrinsically to do with scientific theory! Performing scientific experiments in space (to get away from interfering mavity) is one thing, flying a team to mars is another. To even get to the nearest star (which says nothing of there being habitable planets there) would take an inflight breeding programme of astronauts breeding and training astronauts!

Or developing cryostasis technology... or even effective FTL technology.

 

[jak731]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here

The point is that people have the perception that incredible amounts of money is spent on space, possibly because past a million the size of numbers lose their meaning to most. In America NASA's budget is 2.5% that of the military and less than 1% of the total federal budget (~0.6%) but the average American believes it is 20%. That $38 billion represents 0.06% of the worlds gdp, what it contributes to humanity is unmeasurable.

We are defined by what we choose to do, science and the scientific method is humanities best chance for the future. Space exploration represents the pinnacle of human achievement, the amount of scientific knowledge and understanding required to put someone on the moon is staggering. The fact we prefer to amass methods of self destruction rather than bettering ourselves is just a sign of how immature humanity is. We are not base animals, but people, about 90% animal and 10% something new and different. Unless we want to join the 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth which are now extinct we need to nurture our ability to adapt, science is our best chance of survival.

If you need more convincing about space have a read of the nasa spinoffs.

 

[jak731]

Or developing cryostasis technology... or even effective FTL technology.

Imagine a hypothetical craft that can accelerate at 1g constantly, so it would be comfortable to live on. Such a craft and anyone on board could reach anywhere within the causal horizon of the universe within a human lifetime (under 60 years). This is within the current understanding of relativity, no magic or physics breaking required, just the simple fact that distances get shorter the faster you go. Anyone who wanted to go on such a trip would know that they could never return to Earth.

 

[PermaBanned]

Imagine a hypothetical craft that can accelerate at 1g constantly, so it would be comfortable to live on. Such a craft and anyone on board could reach anywhere within the causal horizon of the universe within a human lifetime (under 60 years). This is within the current understanding of relativity, no magic or physics breaking required, just the simple fact that distances get shorter the faster you go. Anyone who wanted to go on such a trip would know that they could never return to Earth.

Constant acceleration? Interesting, but it can't be sustainable, can it? For starters, does it have to be 1G? I mean, isn't 0.3G rather comfortable? Surely the best form of artificial mavity we could have at the minute would be centripetal force?

No, travelling faster than light is impossible. That doesn't mean that theoretically it wouldn't be possible to get from one point to another in less time than it takes light to.

 

[mushroomsoup]

That's not a reason. People can do anything they want to.

Alas, there is a difference between what we must become to survive and what we could become. It's up to us to make it happen.

No, people can try to do anything they want to. For the most part they will fail in their more ostentatious and well meaning enterprises. The road to hell is often paved with unrealistic good intentions etc. For every utopian or idealistic thinker there are countless other average humans with grudges and prejudices who have always had a vested interest in struggle with each other, out of love or out of hate. This is why all utopian societies have either flat out failed or have become what they set out to change.

I'm not saying we should abandon space exploration I'm just saying I wouldn't get carried away with pinning all your hopes and money on something quite literally, out of this world. We have fights to fight here wherever we like it or not and humans aren't just going to re arrange themselves into a disciplined, civilised and peaceful block by spending more on space exploration. I think money should be spent on developing the world along civilised lines [read what ever you like into that]. If the west stopped spending so much being powerful, it would become less powerful - obviously. The thing is if the west/America chooses to become more concentrated on doing nice things instead of dominating the world then the power vacuum will just be filled by another superpower and there would be no change. Same massive military spending, same wars over land etc. I'd rather base my views around 'What is actually possible?' than 'Wouldn't it be nice if?', and this sci fi technocratic utopia where everyone listens to john lennon falls into the latter category.

We will get into space eventually, but lets not go nuts. If we upset the balance with a costly revolution, we might change a few names, maybe and few borders but ultimately we will still be in the same situation we are in now, one of cruel perpetual stuggle. Things happen slowly and painfully, its not a matter of throwing money at scientists.

 

[jak731]

Constant acceleration? Interesting, but it can't be sustainable, can it? For starters, does it have to be 1G? I mean, isn't 0.3G rather comfortable? Surely the best form of artificial mavity we could have at the minute would be centripetal force?

No, travelling faster than light is impossible. That doesn't mean that theoretically it wouldn't be possible to get from one point to another in less time than it takes light to.

It's a hypothetical craft, we don't have any technology that could manage that at the moment (not to say it's impossible). Anything from 0.5-1.5g is safe over the long term, less than that and bone density gets dangerously low, more than that is uncomfortable. The nearest star is 4.2 light years away relative from the Earth, if you travelled at 87% the speed of light relative to the Earth the distance you measure from Earth to the nearest star would then be 2.1 light years. At 97% of c the distance would be 1 light year and you would measure a journey time just over 1 year, although people on Earth would measure your journey time as just over 4.2 years. It just so happens that accelerating at 1g for 57 years (your frame) would take you to the edge of the universe.

For over 40 years we have had the knowledge and technology to be able to build a craft that would allow us to visit every body in the solar system very quickly and easily for a similar cost to the apollo program, the same technology could take us to the nearest star systems in a human lifetime. Project Orion.

 

[bsoltan]

Sam Seaborn: There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon.
Mallory O'Brian: And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?
Sam Seaborn: Yes.
Mallory O'Brian: Why?
Sam Seaborn: 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.