16
   

Does Space Exploration Make Sense?

 
 
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 10:45 am
Does it make sense for the United States, or even human kind, to commit resources to space exploration?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 16 • Views: 8,938 • Replies: 56

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 10:57 am
@thegalacticemperor,
Yes.

For the simple reason that science needs to explore to move forward.

The real question concerns the amount of resources that should be committed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:00 am
@thegalacticemperor,
It does, but no so much for rational reasons. While we may find resources in space that are unavailable on Earth, the primary benefits from space exploration are on the spiritual side.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:08 am
@hawkeye10,
No, the primary benefits are on the scientific side. This isn't about finding resources in space we can use. It is about furthering human knowledge which may well allow us to better use the resources we have on earth.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:17 am
@parados,
let's see now...the space station has netted almost no science and likely never will because it is not resourced....the Hubble tells us a lot about what is out there but helps not at all with managing our resources....Mars tells us what is on Mars and if we can send people there but helps not at all with earth resources

what the hell are you talking about???
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:30 am
Space exploration? -- sure! It's exciting to learn about our solar system, so of course it makes sense!

Manned space exploration? I don't think so. People on a space vessel do little of value, and suck resources from it by requiring to be kept alive. The infrastructure you need for empowering people to breathe, eat, pee, poop, shower, work out, other things that people do, is wasted for science. In my opinion, they're way too expensive to be worth the postcards showing astronauts on Mars.

Space exploration for the purpose of finding life? I think that's pretty much a waste of time too. But hey, if it helps with the funding ....
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:37 am
@hawkeye10,
I am talking about the science required to send things into space as well as any science that is conducted in space.

What they hell are you talking about as you send bits by radio signal to and from a satellite so they can reach my computer?

Turn on your TV sometime and watch your weather report.
We are surrounded by the science of space exploration.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:38 am
@Thomas,
Yep, I agree with Thomas. That's what I was gonna say.

The one thing that makes me more sympathetic to the idea of manned space exploration is the glamor factor. People love the idea of astronauts (which would still exist for stuff like the space station and repairing it, presumably), love to see them take off and see them come home, and see them waving, weightlessly, when they're up there.

And people are more likely to fund stuff they love. And funding is of course extremely important. (Not just for the space stuff itself but because of the trickle-down effects on science funding.)

Hubble is my idea of perfection in this category -- great story, amazing, (glamorous) photos, but up there doing its thing without humans. (Except for when it needed help at the beginning...)
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:48 am
But the spinoff technologies from manned space missions have been fantastic.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 11:54 am
@DrewDad,
That's a good point too.

I doubt that manned space exploration can be totally cut off at this point. The Hubble is a good example there -- it really needed humans to go ahead and fix it (in space), so it could go on to do all of the amazing things it ended up doing.

So I think there would still be an element of that sort of research and development.

But I think stuff like putting a man on Mars -- just because -- isn't the best use of money.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:37 pm
@Thomas,
One of the main reasons for putting men in space is to get good at it so that we can put a lot of people into space later. I'm sure that in prehistoric times, some caveman suggested that a few people explore what was beyond the next hill, and was told that it was a poor expenditure of effort. In the words of 19th century astrophysicist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."

Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:42 pm
@thegalacticemperor,
Ahh, taking our discussion online are we (yes, we are royal as long as you are an emperor)?

I think it makes sense for humans to contribute resources for whatever they want, even if there are more "needy" needs they will always be there and you can't start questioning everything spent on something other than the most compelling need.

But I don't buy that space exploration will do anything to save humanity and think the whole spend is on a marginal wow factor for nerds (hasn't been interesting to the general public in decades). We can learn a few things here or there but the argument that this is essential to the survival of humanity is not something I buy. I just don't buy into the space colonization dream.

That being said there are a lot more wasteful areas the government spends on, like the military spending. The US spends at least 10 times more per year on the military, and I personally don't believe that halving the military's budget would put other nations' military any closer to the US.

I'd much rather spend more on space exploration (or fiscal responsibility for an even better idea) and reduce the military over-spending.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:42 pm
@thegalacticemperor,
100% yes. It is the prime directive of our species, to diversify our location of existence as much as possible. The raw resources available in space truly dwarf anything that we have here on the surface of the planet. All the other bullshit we spend our time on, here on Earth, truly is a distraction from the future of our species.

I can't believe that some are against manned space exploration. That attitude truly boggles my mind.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:44 pm
@parados,
Supporting technical advance is a major fringe benefit of supporting space exploration, but we could get the same or better benefit for the same dollars by directing at more immediate problems, such as finding a new energy source.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:44 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
But the spinoff technologies from manned space missions have been fantastic.

Name three.

And for extra credit, leave out the teflon pan -- the chestnut people always bring up -- and the spinoffs that would have occured if the missions had been un-manned.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I also forgot about one of the social aspects of space - that is, the military aspect. It's true that he who controls the sky, controls the ground; he who controls space controls the earth. Kinetic energy is basically unstoppable as a weapon, and while I am not for the militarization of space, I feel it is unavoidable and something that we should be looking into.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
One of the main reasons for putting men in space is to get good at it so that we can put a lot of people into space later.

Just because its a main reason, that doesn't mean it's a good reason. Where in space do you want to put them?
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

It does, but no so much for rational reasons. While we may find resources in space that are unavailable on Earth, the primary benefits from space exploration are on the spiritual side.


because of the space exploration program so many things have come into the world, like microwaves, cells phones, and yea so many other things that i cant even being to think of
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:55 pm
@Thomas,
Other planets and space stations. We have a drive within us to diversify and fill up empty space, like all life on earth; this is the logical extension of that.

Cycloptichorn
Seed
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 12:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Other planets and space stations. We have a drive within us to diversify and fill up empty space, like all life on earth; this is the logical extension of that.

Cycloptichorn


we have a need to conqour and over take. fill up empty space, its more like claim the space
 

Related Topics

Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
Meteorite Caught On Camera In Canada - Discussion by InfraBlue
Space Spiders - Discussion by edgarblythe
Rover's on Mars - Discussion by edgarblythe
If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Pluto - Discussion by edgarblythe
My God! It's Full of Stars! - Discussion by RushPoint
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does Space Exploration Make Sense?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2018 at 04:19:03