Future of Space exploration?
- Thread starter Third Opinion
- Start date
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2010
now to put that into context, the Dept of Defense budget just for 2010 was $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010. taken from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652
so 30yrs of NASA budget doesn't even cover 1 yrs worth of American defense spending, which is bloody astonishing
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,439
- Location
- SE England
This really.
It would be fascinating if we could visit Mars once or twice. It gets televised around the world; but what exactly is the point? It will be be simular to visiting the Moon. We want to get there just to get there! It has no benefit to the people on Earth, some are starving to death due to lack of food and others are dieing in wars that they were 'told' is worth fighting for. Total BS.
We have massive corruption, lack of energy and conflict issues in this world which are way more pressing than exploring a universe which we will never get to explore due to it's nature of size.
I sometimes think that Earth is set on self destruct and that we are likely to burn ourselves out before we reach technology which is capable of finding us a new home. The real question is why should we find a new home? We already have one which is set to last as a long long time from now.. but human nature likes to burn itself.
Last edited:
This really.
It would be fascinating if we could visit Mars once or twice. It gets televised around the world; but what exactly is the point? It will be be simular to visiting the Moon. We want to get there just to get there! It has no benefit to the people on Earth, some are starving to death due to lack of food and others are dieing in wars that they were 'told' is worth fighting for. Total BS.
We have massive corruption, lack of energy and conflict issues in this world which are way more pressing than exploring a universe which we will never get to explore due to it's nature of size.
I sometimes think that Earth is set on self destruct and that we are likely to burn ourselves out before we reach technology which is capable of finding us a new home. The real question is why should we find a new home? We already have one.. but human nature likes to burn itself.
Err.. *woosh* (that's the sound of me passing my hand over my head)
One of the critical reasons for expanding into space is to solve our energy problems. There is tons of raw materiel literally floating around out there...
Yes while I agree we really to need to get of this planet, I really dont see it happening at all and if it does it will be to little to late.
The distances are just to big which we wont be able to travel unless we can go into hyper drive!!
Yes there may be tons of material floating around, but who says it useful, where is it and how do we use it?
If we found some energy source that was millions of lights years away, it would be like saying to a guy with no legs "Hey I can give you your legs back, but I need you to run 1 mile first".
To be fair we can manage our own energy here if it weren't for inequality and politics.
We certainly have the ability long term. There is economic benefit to space exploration and minerals and mining etc. It only staves off the inevitable however, unless we get a USS enterprise. Cue skepticism.
Anyway, I'm not sure if conflating so many of the worlds ills is always appropriate. You could apply that thinking to everything, and you maybe should, but it's not always that black and white easy either.
We certainly have the ability long term. There is economic benefit to space exploration and minerals and mining etc. It only staves off the inevitable however, unless we get a USS enterprise. Cue skepticism.
Anyway, I'm not sure if conflating so many of the worlds ills is always appropriate. You could apply that thinking to everything, and you maybe should, but it's not always that black and white easy either.
I think conventional technology could get us about in terms of months/years so it is possible depending on where (and when) you want to go, but the settlement I'm thinking of is almost certainly too much for one country to undertake, forever fluctuating long term as they inevitably do.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,439
- Location
- SE England
But it is costly and unnecessary when we have the Sun that outputs a ridiculous amount of energy that covers our earth daily.
Not to sound like a member of green peace (as I can unsure you I am not) we need to focus more effort on being able to efficiently capture the suns energy.
The current generation of solar panels are a joke when it comes to efficiency, we can do much better.
If we ever master nuclear fusion, in theory we'd have a colossal amount of energy at our disposal- maybe enough to develop propulsion that'll get us to other planets in our solar system a hell of a lot quicker than is possible at the moment.
That alone would present many new possibilities for us; colonies which could be easily sustained and the crew could be rotated frequently due to the ease of returning to Earth.
We'd still need a big sodding ship to exploit everything though, not of the scale of the Enterprise but still a heck of a lot bigger than our space shuttles. It'd probably need to be built in orbit too, much like the Enterprise itself.
That alone would present many new possibilities for us; colonies which could be easily sustained and the crew could be rotated frequently due to the ease of returning to Earth.
We'd still need a big sodding ship to exploit everything though, not of the scale of the Enterprise but still a heck of a lot bigger than our space shuttles. It'd probably need to be built in orbit too, much like the Enterprise itself.
Sorry I must be really stupid but isn't that why we spend money in space science. To answer those questions?
How do you think you got to sitting at your computer desk spewing out your thoughts? It takes years of research and funding. We don't always know the end result but these are the great leaps forward for humankind. Your type of thinking has got us nowhere. Do you understand teaboy5?
There's a really good film called Moon everyone should watch. It's fiction but based on a NASA research project currently underway.
Last edited:
So what do you suggest the amputee do, sit there and wait to perish?
How about he look around, group with other individuals who are sympathetic to his cause and fashion/develop (research) a means to get there.
So short sighted.
I agree with putting man on the Moon in 1969. That was a feat and one of the most significant achievements in world history, but I cannot see further human exploration being worthwhile at this point in time, because there's simply nothing to gain from it, not to mention attempting to establish a colony on Mars would be extremely dangerous.
Last edited:
I still don't get how sending an Apollo sized capsule+lander once every 3 years with 1 passenger each way takes more energy than keeping hundreds/thousands of clones on life support and fed for decades.
It just doesn't make sense to do it that way.
Here's a contradiction:
The human race has always progressed in technological terms. During periods or strife and exploration, technological usage has increased many fold in order to solve or alleviate problems. At the same time, such increase of technological usage has brought about its own problems in every era. We solve problems and create new problems all the time.
People who say that space exploration is useless don't understand that science takes little steps all the time and that these little steps build up to suddenly giant leaps. Solving the problems of excessive shuttle power consumption may bring about a new energy device. Research in light spectrum for telescopes staring out into space could lead to new sensory equipment to use to find out more about our planet.
Of course, when we create new problems, it will come back to bite us. Just look at our current concern with fuel.
The human race has always progressed in technological terms. During periods or strife and exploration, technological usage has increased many fold in order to solve or alleviate problems. At the same time, such increase of technological usage has brought about its own problems in every era. We solve problems and create new problems all the time.
People who say that space exploration is useless don't understand that science takes little steps all the time and that these little steps build up to suddenly giant leaps. Solving the problems of excessive shuttle power consumption may bring about a new energy device. Research in light spectrum for telescopes staring out into space could lead to new sensory equipment to use to find out more about our planet.
Of course, when we create new problems, it will come back to bite us. Just look at our current concern with fuel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,193
- Location
- Paisley
We wont see things move on leaps and bounds without competition. It was a unique scenario in the 60's that led to the developments we saw (which we all reaped the benefits off with the huge technology leaps).
Both Bush's were big believers in Nasa and both tried to push forward the plans for Mars and beyond, the problem being when the democrats got back in power they got cut.
It may happen again if China push their space program, the Americans would no more want a yellow moon than they did a red one.
Both Bush's were big believers in Nasa and both tried to push forward the plans for Mars and beyond, the problem being when the democrats got back in power they got cut.
It may happen again if China push their space program, the Americans would no more want a yellow moon than they did a red one.
DO IT! I'd volunteer to go on that, or to go live on Mars or something
Commercial space flight might be a new way for it to go.
But then again commercial space planes etc while brilliantly fast for travel but also represent a terrifyingly large security risk.
Just imagine say a 100+ ton space plane being hijacked and piloted into a city as fast as it could from re-entry the thing could wipe out half of a city.
But then again commercial space planes etc while brilliantly fast for travel but also represent a terrifyingly large security risk.
Just imagine say a 100+ ton space plane being hijacked and piloted into a city as fast as it could from re-entry the thing could wipe out half of a city.