The silly reason why we sent men to the Moon.

[xcorps]

Well you never know, maybe that kidney stone research will lead to some sort of conclusion that will help people with kidney stones. Or maybe the T-cells research will lead to a better way to help people with cancer. The point is space DOES help people, it is merely taken for granted leading to some to claim that they know better then the 1000's that have come before them.

I do know that it's not worth spending billions of dollars on. If the Great Kidney Stone scare of 2014 is sufficiently important that the government needs to spend money on scientific research, the proper route is to create a bill in the House of Representatives.

Otherwise I can just posit "Studying arm hair follicles on the surface of Mercury could lead to whiter teeth! NASA, study NOW!" and we have to accept that as a reasonable expenditure of public funds.

[xenomorph555]

I do know that it's not worth spending billions of dollars on. If the Great Kidney Stone scare of 2014 is sufficiently important that the government needs to spend money on scientific research, the proper route is to create a bill in the House of Representatives.

Otherwise I can just posit "Studying arm hair follicles on the surface of Mercury could lead to whiter teeth! NASA, study NOW!" and we have to accept that as a reasonable expenditure of public funds.

Nope but cancer is definitely worth spending on!

Oh and no nasa would exist without LBJ, according to real history nasa was founded by Eisenhower.

[xcorps]

Nope but cancer is definitely worth spending on!

Oh and no nasa would exist without LBJ, according to real history nasa was founded by Eisenhower.

And how much more actual real cancer research would be done if 110 billion were diverted from ISS to actual cancer research?

I suggest you check the voting record of Senator Lyndon B Johnson. He was THE primary driver of the NASA act. He was THE primary driver of the Apollo mission. He was THE primary driver of changing JFK's perspective from "Man in space? Yeah right whatever" to "We chose to do these and other things because they are hard".I say again...without Lyndon B Johnson, the Space Race would have failed, NASA would not have existed in it's current incarnation, and the United States wouldn't have gone to the Moon before 1980 because of Apollo I.

I recommend starting with "Apollo" by Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray. Wikipedia doesn't have any context.

[Rakaydos]

If we are to ever live with our feet on another world, manned space exploration is essential research on lifesupport, sustainable enviroments, recycling, and more critical infrastructure. Losing our manned presence in space would do the same thing that canceling apollo did to our interplanetary capablity.

A sustainable colony- whether it be Mars, the Moon, Europa, or the clouds of Venus or Saturn- would be a major step for the human race, a chance to survive a truly global catastrophe. A manned presence on an Exoplanet would be the next stage, the ability of humanity to survive the death of the Sun- the first full step of an eternal human race.

[xcorps]

If we are to ever live with our feet on another world, manned space exploration is essential research on lifesupport, sustainable enviroments, recycling, and more critical infrastructure. Losing our manned presence in space would do the same thing that canceling apollo did to our interplanetary capablity.

This is actually a good argument. However, it is reasonable to counter with "Let's do it when we can get to space for 10$/kg." Which probably is no more than a century or two away.

A sustainable colony- whether it be Mars, the Moon, Europa, or the clouds of Venus or Saturn- would be a major step for the human race, a chance to survive a truly global catastrophe. A manned presence on an Exoplanet would be the next stage, the ability of humanity to survive the death of the Sun- the first full step of an eternal human race.

Eternity doesn't exist. Thermodynamic equilibrium will put an end to us all.

[Camacha]

And how much more actual real cancer research would be done if 110 billion were diverted from ISS to actual cancer research?

Your vision is way too narrow, because the whole point of the video was that space inspired a whole generation. Countless of people went into engineering, physics or other branches because they had seen a dream, hope, a future. Whatever the direct pay-off, the indirect one is much larger. People do better when they work for a great cause they believe in. They saw the astronauts and wanted to be parts of that greater good.

Only pouring money into things that are sure to return investment is what is happening in medicine right now and it is hurting research and progress. If you knew what you are doing, it would not be research. It is about stumbling about and bumping your toe on something amazing, but people are too scared to fund that nowadays.

[xcorps]

Your vision is way too narrow, because the whole point of the video was that space inspired a whole generation. Countless of people went into engineering, physics or other branches because they had seen a dream, hope, a future. Whatever the direct pay-off, the indirect one is much larger. People do better when they work for a great cause they believe in. They saw the astronauts and wanted to be parts of that greater good.

I respect your point of view, but this is not a sound argument. It is emotional melodramatic rhetoric.

We cannot achieve what Apollo achieved. It is not possible. Even putting a man on Mars pales in comparison.

I would like to point out that the public "insipiration" for Apollo pretty much vanished about 10 minutes after Neil and Buzz made it back to Earth and had the parade. Only the near death hyperdrama of Apollo 13 got peoples attention. Ask any average Joe on the street who the last man on the Moon was. Hell, ask them how many times we landed on the Moon.

Nobody cares. Nobody has any reason to care.

Only pouring money into things that are sure to return investment is what is happening in medicine right now and it is hurting research and progress. If you knew what you are doing, it would not be research. It is about stumbling about and bumping your toe on something amazing, but people are too scared to fund that nowadays.

If these things are to use public money, then the spenders of that money must be accountable to the public.

[SargeRho]

However, it is reasonable to counter with "Let's do it when we can get to space for 10$/kg."

No, it's not. It's a useless attitude which doesn't get you anywhere. Apollo inspired a whole damn generation of Engineers, and NASA's inventions have since paid for NASA several times over.

[Karriz]

I don't think we should wait for some new technology (warp drive?) to appear before exploring space, because that technology will never get invented that way.

We must use what we have now, and go on developing new technology from that basis.

Of course there will always be excuses not to spend money on exploration. Poverty, diseases, economic crises, wars... Nobody knows how to solve those problems, but trying to reach our limits certainly won't hurt, either.

There's plenty of tax money spent on things which are counter-productive, in any country. I wouldn't count space exploration as one, it's quite the opposite.

[xcorps]

No, it's not. It's a useless attitude which doesn't get you anywhere. Apollo inspired a whole damn generation of Engineers, and NASA's inventions have since paid for NASA several times over.

Prove it. Show me an invention of NASA's (although I'm sure you mean a contractor of NASA) that has returned to the US Treasury 300 billion dollars.

[SargeRho]

Telecommunications alone probably has produced way more than that in the past few decades. Waiting for things to become cheap never gets you anwhere. Pushing the boundaries however, does.

[vger]

Xcorps... if you can't think of any other good reasons to put humans in space, how about this one.

Earth has a limited surface area. Overpopulation WILL happen. And when it does, it will be unbelievably ugly. The kind of ruckus caused by the threat of losing the right to bear arms would be absolutely nothing compared to what would happen if people were told they could no longer reproduce. Spawning is humanity's most powerful instinct. Women are even called selfish for not having kids (and I don't even mean abortions, just "I don't want kids").

Earth is heating up. Even if we discovered an energy source that caused no pollutants and greenhouse gases, the planet would still be heating up, because heat is a natural byproduct.

Earth has limited resources. We can't run on what we have here forever. And I'm not just talking about obvious things like oil. Resources that go into all manner of manufacturing. For one example: rare Earth metals. They're called that for a reason. Some of our rare Earth metals could also be called common moon metals. But on the topic of energy, we're going to hit a wall with that sooner or later. And if it happens before we've established a permanent space presence, we won't even have the power to get off the planet anymore, and will be trapped here forever.

Prove it. Show me an invention of NASA's (although I'm sure you mean a contractor of NASA) that has returned to the US Treasury 300 billion dollars.

Payback doesn't always come in the form of cash. If something comes out that makes something we do faster or cheaper, you're going to get that money back through not having to spend it on doing something the now-obsolete way.

Your vision is way too narrow, because the whole point of the video was that space inspired a whole generation. Countless of people went into engineering, physics or other branches because they had seen a dream, hope, a future. Whatever the direct pay-off, the indirect one is much larger. People do better when they work for a great cause they believe in. They saw the astronauts and wanted to be parts of that greater good.

Only pouring money into things that are sure to return investment is what is happening in medicine right now and it is hurting research and progress. If you knew what you are doing, it would not be research. It is about stumbling about and bumping your toe on something amazing, but people are too scared to fund that nowadays.

Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons that another 'space renaissance' may not help in the way that NASA's golden age did. The Wallstreet mentality of pretty much EVERYONE is making us behave less and less like a society and more like an endless battle royale. Even the "everyone goes to college" push has actually been detrimental. It's now a necessity for making money, and that's what really made it popular. People get a degree these days because they want to become rich. The old typical reason for going to college was because you wanted to make a contribution to civilization. Those are the kinds of people who go into the sciences after seeing men walking on the moon. These days all anyone thinks about is, "Will I be able to sell it to Facebook and then retire in the Bahamas at 25?"

Edited July 26, 2014 by vger

[xcorps]

Earth has a limited surface area. Overpopulation WILL happen. And when it does, it will be unbelievably ugly. The kind of ruckus caused by the threat of losing the right to bear arms would be absolutely nothing compared to what would happen if people were told they could no longer reproduce. Spawning is humanity's most powerful instinct. Women are even called selfish for not having kids (and I don't even mean abortions, just "I don't want kids").

Begs the question of when. There are no reasonably unbiased studies that I am aware of that suggest what the sustainable human population of the planet is.

As long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate, then we are safe in the assumption that present population is sustainable. This is presently the case.

Earth is heating up. Even if we discovered an energy source that caused no pollutants and greenhouse gases, the planet would still be heating up, because heat is a natural byproduct.

There is only speculation and handwringing over the effect of this heating. So far, all the models are wrong. I don't expect to be surfing on melted ice from Missouri any time soon.

Earth has limited resources. We can't run on what we have here forever. And I'm not just talking about obvious things like oil. Resources that go into all manner of manufacturing. For one example: rare Earth metals. They're called that for a reason. Some of our rare Earth metals could also be called common moon metals.

Then why isn't NASA developing and refining lunar extraction techniques instead of screwing around with ISS? That's been a major bone of contention of geologists and metallurgists inside NASA since the early 1970's.

You tell me "Hey, we can research, develop, deploy, and operate a metal extraction facility on the Moon for a Trillion dollars. It will eventually provide x tons of ore to earth at a cost of x" and we're onto something.

[xcorps]

Telecommunications alone probably has produced way more than that in the past few decades. Waiting for things to become cheap never gets you anwhere. Pushing the boundaries however, does.

That's a result of demand. Not manned space flight.

[G'th]

Space exploration is cheap. NASA's budget was awful even when the Shuttle (IE, the thing that ended up costing a massive amount more than it was supposed to) was still active, and it still did a lot for progress, both in the construction of the ISS (which has provided a metric **** ton of research on a metric **** ton of areas) and its general job. Whether it was Spacelab or any of the various scientific satellites it deployed.

And besides, its an easy way to provide jobs for people, and not just for those in manufacturing. Everyone gets a bump up with a well funded space program. As someone who lives and works right around KSC, I can definitely tell you how badly the ending the shuttle program hit this area. I shudder to think what it'll be like if NASA continues to have its budget cut.

That being said though, education and scientific research (be it medical, astronomic, etc etc) in general is under-funded in the US, its not just the space program that doesn't get nearly the amount of funding it deserves. While xcorps has a point, the fact of the matter is the space program deserves no less funding. Civilization in general won't be able to progress much farther without it.

Then why isn't NASA developing and refining lunar extraction techniques instead of screwing around with ISS? That's been a major bone of contention of geologists and metallurgists inside NASA since the early 1970's.

You tell me "Hey, we can research, develop, deploy, and operate a metal extraction facility on the Moon for a Trillion dollars. It will eventually provide x tons of ore to earth at a cost of x" and we're onto something.

Politics. NASA is too heavily controlled by Congress and the President in particular (Granted, they also have issues deciding what they want to do on their own anyway). The Shuttle in particular (and the space station for that matter) was something that NASA might not have bothered with had Nixon not decided it for them.

Edited July 26, 2014 by G'th

[Exosphere]

This is actually a good argument. However, it is reasonable to counter with "Let's do it when we can get to space for 10$/kg." Which probably is no more than a century or two away.

So, you're saying we should not focus on space exploration until the cost of getting to LEO is $10/kg... which is apparently going to happen in a "century or two," even if we don't focus on space exploration during the interim?

Wait, wot?

[Camacha]

I respect your point of view, but this is not a sound argument. It is emotional melodramatic rhetoric.

It's not, since it is not about the last man on the moon. That view is again too narrow. It is abouts hundreds of thousands of kids that ate, slept and lived space and things in the future. They grew up to be the driving force of (then) future America. If people do not dream, they are a lot more limited. It is a mindset that changes everything.

The fact that a lot of technologies from famous sci-fi movies and series were realized is no coincidence - all the boys and girls eating up those episodes grew up to be engineers, scientists, designers. They worked, consciously or without realising it, on the things they imagined to vividly when they were younger. To make big steps you need to have your eyes on the horizon, not on the dirt on your shoes. You can either play with dirt or do something relevant.

If these things are to use public money, then the spenders of that money must be accountable to the public.

Accountable, yes. Already knowing what the result is going to be before you start research, no. That is not the proper form to do research, it is denying what research is. Applied research is fine, but should be supplemented with a healthy dose of fundamental research.

I will say it again, and this is important: if you know what you are doing, it is not research any more. It really is as simple as that. If you are never surprised by your results you are doing something wrong.

[Kerbal01]

Indeed. It's criminal how underfunded the space program is.

I think what we need is an international space agency. Band NASA, the ESA, Roscosmos, and a bunch of others together under the United Nations. Their combined budgets and manpower should be plenty enough to get stuff done without the need for competition. Not only would we return to space in a big way, it would send a clear message that sometimes you don't need competition to justify doing something big. Sometimes you just need the courage to act when no one else will.

+Rep! (10Char)

[xcorps]

So, you're saying we should not focus on space exploration until the cost of getting to LEO is $10/kg... which is apparently going to happen in a "century or two," even if we don't focus on space exploration during the interim?

Wait, wot?

Manned. Manned space exploration. We have a higher net benefit from unmanned probes etc than manned probes per dollar.

[Rus-Evo]

Maybe we don't need to be advancing as fast as we did in the 50s & 60s. If we are going to space because we are "thinking long term" then why not advance on a long term time scale (as our resources allow). Maybe we as people interested in space are just too impatient!

[SargeRho]

We are advancing far slower than our ressources actually allow. We can waste hundreds of billions of dollars on so many things, but apparently don't have enough to give NASA 30 billion of that.

[linkxsc]

[rant]

Xcorps, how are satellites communications not an amazing thing thats come out of space exploration? Or you know GPS. The GPS chip in your phone must be the devil or something. Never been any market for knowing where you are.

Also how bout all them hirez satellite pictures that people use all the time. Sure is nice for me in my job where I have to track down cell tower sites in the middle of nowhere, I can just throw some coordinates into google and get dropped exactly where I need to go so I can follow the unmarked mountain roads that even GPSes don't know about, up to these places. Yeap, space program certainly doesn't help me out with MY job every day. Also lets not forget many of the extreme advances in radio equipment worked on for satellites and such, I'm sure some of that stuff has found its way into the tower sites I'm working on.

Also clearly dish network and direct TV aint doing too good, no more live sporting events / news from the other side of the world within seconds of it happening. Oh right, most people don't care what happens outside of the road between their house, their work, and the bar they go to every night.

How about all them satellite phones people have on ships so they can stay in communications, report if the pirates are coming down on them, or if teh engine just blew the hell up. And lets not forget those comfy tempur foam mattresses. I got 1 of their pillows (im too cheap to spend that much money on a mattress for a bed I only see for a few weeks out of the year)

AND WHAT ABOUT TANG. I'm sure many of you don't remember tang, I do, that stuff was great.

But hey, no public money should go to them experimenting with solar power generation, medical stuff, or the advancement of spacecraft design, cause you know, an asteroid could come by at any minute and kill us all. Yeah, lets just wait until a ground based telescope picks that thing up when we've only got a couple months to do something about it. THEN we'll start thinking about space again.

Nope, instead lets spend it all on a broken healthcare system (Not obamacare. Lets just talk about the prosthetic leg my cousin had that cost $35,000 for something he discarded weeks later for one he threw together in his machine whop that fits better, and he probably only spent like $150 on. Or the powered wheelchair that my grandmother bought through her insurance that cost over 10k, when after it broke down we went to the manufacturer and bought the same one for ~$600)

Or lets go start another war. Or lets go mess up social security some more (why it's even considered part of the federal buudget is beyond me, as I recall it was supposed to be a self supporting system that had NOTHING to do with the general fund, and was untouchable.)

Nope, its so horrible that when you pay your taxes, less than a half a percent goes to giving me a reason to dream about something other than naked ladies and airsoft

FYI, last year when I paid taxes, NASA got LESS than $10 from me. Serves them right for making rockets go fwoosh and making me have more of a reason to quit my job and go back to finish my degree. I could have spent that money buying MYSELF, like... 3 model rockets maybe, I dunno, the motors are getting pretty expensive. In 15 years or so they might be able to buy an RC plane with my funding.

Hell, is there like a place where they accept donations or some crap?

Oh well, the fact of the matter stands. The whole argument is that, we do get stuff out of space related expeditions in science. And we WILL continue to see more in the future. And when you start arguing "COST", trust me, NASA is the LEAST of our worries when it comes to wasting money, at least here in America, I don't know about other country's views of their own programs.

[/rant]

[vger]

Begs the question of when. There are no reasonably unbiased studies that I am aware of that suggest what the sustainable human population of the planet is.

As long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate, then we are safe in the assumption that present population is sustainable. This is presently the case.

There is only speculation and handwringing over the effect of this heating. So far, all the models are wrong. I don't expect to be surfing on melted ice from Missouri any time soon.

I err on the side of caution on such things. Doesn't mean I expect to see an inhabited base on Pluto (just because) within the next century, but the R&D of space habitation should be an ongoing thing, even if it's just earth-based simulations. Waiting until we have no choice would be a bad idea, because if we reach a point where the majority of the people agree that, "Great, we're fracked, we need space NOW," it will already be too late. I don't see it as any different than having an asteroid redirect plan BEFORE we spot an Armageddon-sized asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Same goes for the development of fusion power. We don't need it yet, but we're going ahead with it anyway.

I can at least apply that thinking to population issues. If heating is actually a problem, it will become much more obvious as more nations industrialize.

Then why isn't NASA developing and refining lunar extraction techniques instead of screwing around with ISS? That's been a major bone of contention of geologists and metallurgists inside NASA since the early 1970's.

You tell me "Hey, we can research, develop, deploy, and operate a metal extraction facility on the Moon for a Trillion dollars. It will eventually provide x tons of ore to earth at a cost of x" and we're onto something.

A very good question and I don't have an answer to that. I'm going to bet a ton of bureaucratic nonsense is involved. I don't pretend to know specifically what NASA can and can't do, but it's EXTREMELY hairy. I've heard enough about the myriad of ways the hands of the USPS are tied, and why they can't stay in the black.

Maybe if I get bored, I'll make a call and ask if it's something they could legally do if they had the funding for it.

Edited July 27, 2014 by vger

[Aghanim]

This is actually a good argument. However, it is reasonable to counter with "Let's do it when we can get to space for 10$/kg." Which probably is no more than a century or two away.

That 10$/kg launch tech won't be here if there is no development on launch technologies.

The chicken and egg problem:

No one wants to go to space because its too expensive, so no one wants to develop launch techs that will reduces the cost because no one will use it

[xcorps]

[rant]

Why all the angst? Is it not possible to have a conversation that challenges your thinking without you getting angry?

Xcorps, how are satellites communications not an amazing thing thats come out of space exploration? Or you know GPS. The GPS chip in your phone must be the devil or something. Never been any market for knowing where you are.

I've said and resaid MANNED EXPLORATION. I have no issue with things that are useful to the general population with quantitive applications. Show me a Cassini probe and I'm happy. Tell me you want to send 3 guys to Saturn and I'm out.

AND WHAT ABOUT TANG. I'm sure many of you don't remember tang, I do, that stuff was great.

Tang? Really? Don't tell me you think NASA invented Tang please. It was invented by General Foods corporation. In 1957. It didn't become popular until it was on the menu for a meal experiment in Mercury. I think it was John Glenn. Tang jumped at the free publicity, made a few wise choices in marketing and it became a mildly popular drink which Buzz Aldrin does not like.

Nope, instead lets spend it all on a broken healthcare system (Not obamacare. Lets just talk about the prosthetic leg my cousin had that cost $35,000 for something he discarded weeks later for one he threw together in his machine whop that fits better, and he probably only spent like $150 on. Or the powered wheelchair that my grandmother bought through her insurance that cost over 10k, when after it broke down we went to the manufacturer and bought the same one for ~$600)

The fact that your cousin threw away a 35,000$ dollar device is a wonder all in it's own.

Or lets go mess up social security some more (why it's even considered part of the federal buudget is beyond me, as I recall it was supposed to be a self supporting system that had NOTHING to do with the general fund, and was untouchable

Don't even get me started.

Nope, its so horrible that when you pay your taxes, less than a half a percent goes to giving me a reason to dream about something other than naked ladies and airsoft

FYI, last year when I paid taxes, NASA got LESS than $10 from me.

How much money NASA gets isn't the issue. It's HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT. I am also a taxpayer, and I have an opinion as well. I'm not all angry and up in arms that you don't share my opinion, so have a class of chamomile tea.

Oh well, the fact of the matter stands. The whole argument is that, we do get stuff out of space related expeditions in science. And we WILL continue to see more in the future. And when you start arguing "COST", trust me, NASA is the LEAST of our worries when it comes to wasting money, at least here in America, I don't know about other country's views of their own programs.

Strawman. We aren't discussing anything but NASA in this thread. I would actually be quite happy if the waste and fraud that exists in government were to be recouped and channeled to NASA funding. As long as it isn't on manned trips to the moon or mars.

That 10$/kg launch tech won't be here if there is no development on launch technologies.

The chicken and egg problem:

No one wants to go to space because its too expensive, so no one wants to develop launch techs that will reduces the cost because no one will use it

I posted in another thread the development costs of the F1. It was man certified before it ever had a capsule on it. A billion and a half. NASA spent that much for take out pizza (just kidding about that) on Constellation and got absolutely nothing for it.

Edited July 27, 2014 by xcorps