Space Exploration\Resea rch etc.

[McPaper]

Im interested in what you guys think on the topic of exploration in space and so on..

Do you think currently, spending money on space research is justified or do you think that money should go elsewhere, or do you even think that more money and attention should be put into space research.

Of recent the only news Ive heard about the subject is the project Richard Branson is developing about commercial Virgin space flights. I support this idea as I think it will get a lot of people interested in space again.

Also, share projections where you see the subject of space being in a couple of decades time. Where you personally want it to be, still taking into account the expense it will take on the country funding it. It would certainly be nice to see at least one important manned mission in my lifetime.

[animehater]

I would definitely like to see more private secter involvement. I would also like to see more development on the moon.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 12:25 AM, McPaper wrote: Im interested in what you guys think on the topic of exploration in space and so on..

Mostly seems like a waste of time.

I support this idea as I think it will get a lot of people interested in space again.

A lot of rich people.

Also, share projections where you see the subject of space being in a couple of decades time.

I predict that people will still be saying "man space is useless" while others will counter with "NASA invented the microwave and the adult diapers, SO TAKE THAT!" which is not a great argument when you think about it as those inventions didn't come about as a RESULT of space exploration, but of research to go INTO space.

It's like saying discovering America was awesome for ship-building technology.

[SadisticMonkey]

are there benefits to be made from space exploration/research? Definitely

Given the current economic climate and the US national debt being over $12 trillion, is funding of this research by the government justified? No freaking way

besides, like all scientific innovation, it's best left up to private sector

[AapoJoki]

At 1/10/10 07:55 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: besides, like all scientific innovation, it's best left up to private sector

Do you think it would be a good idea if cigarette companies suddenly wanted to become the most generous sponsors of lung cancer research? Science needs to remain neutral and objective, which is hard to achieve when there is the interest of profit involved (not saying that corrupt politicians being in charge of science funds doesn't have its dangers too). Moreover, it's hard to determine in advance which branches of science will provide the best economical benefits in the long run. Thus, if a field doesn't immediately provide the results and business prospects expected by the sponsor, it's more likely to lose its funding right off the bat even if it would turn out to have enormous potential in the future.

However, even if we accept that seeking profit is a bad idea in science, it still could be funded privately by non-profit organizations, such as the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Still we need to ask, would these organizations alone be able to provide enough funds for science for sufficient development and sustenance of human societies and civilization?

With space exploration, I don't see a huge risk in leaving its funding in the hands of corporations. However, if there turns out to be no financial interest in space, it might be left completely untouched both by the businesses and the government. This is a bad idea, because if USA and its western allies don't go to space, then someone else will. I don't fancy the thought of Russians and the Chinese being the first ones to place low-orbit ion cannons over the planet Earth, although I'm not advocating a new space race either. I think the best way to explore space is through international co-operation.

[Elfer]

At 1/10/10 01:19 AM, poxpower wrote: I predict that people will still be saying "man space is useless" while others will counter with "NASA invented the microwave and the adult diapers, SO TAKE THAT!" which is not a great argument when you think about it as those inventions didn't come about as a RESULT of space exploration, but of research to go INTO space.

It's like saying discovering America was awesome for ship-building technology.

It is actually a pretty decent argument, especially since funding for research projects is often given on a project-to-project basis. If a company wants to form a research partnership with NASA, they don't need to say "Well, I'm going to give you guys this money, and do whatever you want with it," they can say "I'm going to give you this money, and all of it or X% of it needs to be spent on your electric wireless food heating project."

In the short(ish) term, space technology could be directly applied for mining applications, most notably mining Helium-3 from lunar regolith.

On top of that, a couple hundred years from now when we really need this space exploration technology, it's going to have been a lot more doable and a lot less expensive overall if we've already laid the groundwork like we're doing now. Do we really need more money for space exploration? No. But taking into consideration the amount spent on research in general, the amount spent on space exploration isn't exactly excessive.

[Conal]

Well, although the amount of money spent in astronomy is considerable, there will always be poverty around the world. Humans won't be around for long compared to the length of time that the Universe has been around for. I think we should give money to those who need it most, but I don't think we should just stop the exploration of space.

India went to the moon not long ago & locals complained that the money could have been spent of their poverty. It might have been slightly unfair that India decide to put showing off ahead of there poor citizens because people have already been to the moon. But space travel is important.

[LordJaric]

At 1/10/10 09:49 AM, AapoJoki wrote: This is a bad idea, because if USA and its western allies don't go to space, then someone else will. I don't fancy the thought of Russians and the Chinese being the first ones to place low-orbit ion cannons over the planet Earth,

You do know that there are international laws against the weaponization space.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 12:03 PM, Elfer wrote:

On top of that, a couple hundred years from now when we really need this space exploration technology, it's going to have been a lot more doable and a lot less expensive overall

Except we'll all be dead because we didn't put our money in something smart like medical research, computer, nanomaterials etc. etc.

Scrap NASA and replace it with an actually useful project like the "let's make people live 200 years" project.

I don't get it. There's nothing we could possibly want for hundreds of years in space and the only excuse people give for spending cash on it is "we can use the technology elsewhere". Well HOW ABOUT YOU FUND ELSEWHERE INSTEAD.

[AapoJoki]

At 1/10/10 03:58 PM, LordJaric wrote: You do know that there are international laws against the weaponization space.

Do you think that all nations give two shits about international law? Besides, even if rivalry in military is not an issue, economic and technological rivalry still is. If the US government neglects the prospect of space and big businesses don't find it lucrative enough either, they will fall behind from those that do take space seriously.

[Elfer]

At 1/10/10 04:41 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't get it. There's nothing we could possibly want for hundreds of years in space and the only excuse people give for spending cash on it is "we can use the technology elsewhere". Well HOW ABOUT YOU FUND ELSEWHERE INSTEAD.

Because there's diminishing returns to funding research, because it actually takes time to do, not just money. The next series of tests and experiments depends on the resutls from the preceding ones. You can't get shit done twice as fast with twice as much money.

The point is not just that this technology indirectly helps us today, it's that we will need it directly eventually, and the resources we invest now will mean huge, huge saved resources later on.

The money we spend on space research isn't going to be the difference between life and death for our species. Just because the direct results won't be truly applicable for 200 years doesn't mean the research isn't worth doing right now. It's short-term thinking like you're promoting that causes us to dig ourselves into all sorts of holes, for example, our current dependence on non-renewable energy sources.

Refusing to do work for 200 years in the future just because we won't be alive when the applications of that work become critical is irresponsible and selfish. If you're only concerned about your own immediate interests, why not just scrap all humanitarian projects too?

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 05:17 PM, Elfer wrote: You can't get shit done twice as fast with twice as much money.

For this argument to apply in this case would mean that we've funded everything else so fully that we have nothing to blow money on except NASA.

The money we spend on space research isn't going to be the difference between life and death for our species.

Doesn't mean it's well-spent.

It's short-term thinking like you're promoting that causes us to dig ourselves into all sorts of holes

I think that "beyond my lifetime" is a little too big long-term for me.

If you're only concerned about your own immediate interests, why not just scrap all humanitarian projects too?

There's a lot of reasons to help other countries. For instance: they harbor terrorists and horrible diseases and are constantly in a state of war and chaos. Can't have that bullshit. We have swine flu and AIDs as a direct cause of shitholes like Mexico and Africa existing.

I frankly don't give a shit about what happens to people once I'm dead because I'M NOT RELIGIOUS.

If you can keep me alive for 500 years then yeah let's go to space man. Until then space exploration is nothing more than a luxury and ... well it's horrible to say but tough shit if your space shuttle blows up, you shouldn't have been in it in the first place. No one cries when a stupid kid crunches his balls on a rail while trying to do a skateboard move.

Take a hint NASA, stop sending people in space, it's stupid.

[chairmankem]

At 1/10/10 12:25 AM, McPaper wrote: Do you think currently, spending money on space research is justified or do you think that money should go elsewhere, or do you even think that more money and attention should be put into space research.

We are not spending nearly enough on space research and investment. The goal should be to expand civilization to space- and that won't just be done through NASA, but through other space agencies and private spaceflight companies. We should probably spend ten times more than we do now on space research, and that could easily be accomplished if the US didn't waste money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of recent the only news Ive heard about the subject is the project Richard Branson is developing about commercial Virgin space flights. I support this idea as I think it will get a lot of people interested in space again.

Commercial space ventures are the way to go. It makes space accessible to the public- which is eventually what it is for. Also, they have a real incentive to get into space at the lowest cost possible and utilize its resources to expand the Earthside economy.

Also, share projections where you see the subject of space being in a couple of decades time.

I would imagine that over the 2010s and 2020s that space companies will start making low-orbit flights but will be hard-pressed to find any real investment. If governments step up and help them, we could see the cost of launching things into orbit to fall dramatically. NASA is planning to set up a moon base by 2024 and if enough emphasis on commercial investment is made we could possibly see colonies on the Moon and a Mars mission by the late 2030s to the early 2050s.

Where you personally want it to be, still taking into account the expense it will take on the country funding it. It would certainly be nice to see at least one important manned mission in my lifetime.

Space is the only real way that humans will be able to expand civilization. We need a thriving off-world colony by 2050 at the least.

At 1/10/10 09:49 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Science needs to remain neutral and objective, which is hard to achieve when there is the interest of profit involved (not saying that corrupt politicians being in charge of science funds doesn't have its dangers too).

NASA has provided that objectivity for the past half-century or so. Scientific exploration won't stop simply because of the lack of private investment. Ultimately, there is profit to be made in space at some point in the future, whether just in Earth orbit or beyond. What space companies will do is help make it cheaper and more efficient.

Still we need to ask, would these organizations alone be able to provide enough funds for science for sufficient development and sustenance of human societies and civilization?

Except they don't really have the manpower or capital to get anything done.

I think the best way to explore space is through international co-operation.

Which we're NOT going to get anytime soon. The US still provides the most funding for space research and exploration, and unless a real effort is made to get other countries involved, space is going nowhere.

At 1/10/10 12:03 PM, Elfer wrote: In the short(ish) term, space technology could be directly applied for mining applications, most notably mining Helium-3 from lunar regolith.

The first major space project should be creating a moon colony. It would be the first port of call for any manned interplanetary missions and aside from helium-3, it would be a useful research station and possibly a possible site for space tourism. Considering that we will need to develop technology specifically to sustain the ecology within the base, the research towards power generation, life support and hydroponics systems might have real applications on Earth.

No. But taking into consideration the amount spent on research in general, the amount spent on space exploration isn't exactly excessive.

How about considering all the money that we basically waste?

At 1/10/10 04:41 PM, poxpower wrote: Scrap NASA and replace it with an actually useful project like the "let's make people live 200 years" project.

That's really stupid because you can possibly fund both of them several times over if you just drastically reduce completely needless military spending.

[Elfer]

At 1/10/10 05:32 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/10/10 05:17 PM, Elfer wrote: You can't get shit done twice as fast with twice as much money.

For this argument to apply in this case would mean that we've funded everything else so fully that we have nothing to blow money on except NASA.

For the most part, we have. The long-term benefits of space research now are definitely going to outweigh any short-term benefits we could gain from pumping the money into a different field.

It's short-term thinking like you're promoting that causes us to dig ourselves into all sorts of holes

I think that "beyond my lifetime" is a little too big long-term for me.

See, but now we run into a prisoner's dilemma type thing, except for a succession of parties instead of two interacting parties. If each generation was willing to put in work for subsequent generations, each one would be much better off. We can see this sort of investment working out when parents pay for their kids to receive higher education (in the sense of middle to upper-middle class families that aren't rich enough for the kids to be students forever in a useless field). Obviously the parents themselves would be better off if they just didn't give their kids any money for school, but if we look at it as a succession of generations, in the long run it's obvious that each generation would be better off if they were graduating without debt and could build net worth immediately.

I frankly don't give a shit about what happens to people once I'm dead because I'M NOT RELIGIOUS.

Then why give a shit about the NASA funding? Like I've been trying to get across, putting that money into medical research is unlikely to make a substantial difference within your lifetime. This way you at least have microwaves and pens that write upside down and shit.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 06:14 PM, Elfer wrote:

The long-term benefits of space research now are definitely going to outweigh any short-term benefits we could gain from pumping the money into a different field.

Yeah kind of like Fry investing his money for 1000 years in Futurama.

If each generation was willing to put in work for subsequent generations, each one would be much better off.

Yep.
Though shit. It's not like you can make a compromise with people 150 years ago.

Then why give a shit about the NASA funding? Like I've been trying to get across, putting that money into medical research is unlikely to make a substantial difference within your lifetime.

How can you possibly predict this?
This reminds me of the TEDtalk of the dude who's looking to make the lifespan of mice longer and hands out a prize for it. You think that guy can't use more money? Holy shit, we should give all our money to him. And our young virgins.

When you're on your death bed, how much money would you spend to live another week?

This way you at least have microwaves and pens that write upside down and shit.

Maybe we'd have penis enlargement pills that really work instead, who knows?
( not that I need them, but sometimes I feel sorry for other people )

[Elfer]

At 1/10/10 07:30 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah kind of like Fry investing his money for 1000 years in Futurama.

No, more like how everyone knows that this is true, which is why companies have prospecting departments.

Yep.
Though shit. It's not like you can make a compromise with people 150 years ago.

Right, that's because one generation has to start it. Sure it isn't fair that the generations immediately before us weren't doing this, but being a baby and complaining about how you want everything for yourself isn't going to help matters either.

How can you possibly predict this?

Maybe because I have at least some concept of how research actually works, and I know that dumping a small pile of money onto a large pile of money isn't going to speed things up a whole hell of a lot.

This reminds me of the TEDtalk of the dude who's looking to make the lifespan of mice longer and hands out a prize for it. You think that guy can't use more money? Holy shit, we should give all our money to him. And our young virgins.

When you're on your death bed, how much money would you spend to live another week?

Given my family's medical history, I'm probably going to be dying of terminal cancer, so I'd say probably slightly less than zero dollars. Also, I'm probably the wrong person to make this sort of argument against, since I'm not really uncomfortable with the idea of my eventual mortality.

The problem here is obviously that ageing is not our only issue. Along with that we also have to cure every single terminal disease that there is, otherwise people are still fucked. Again, research takes time, and you're probably going to die, space exploration or no. Deal with it.

Maybe we'd have penis enlargement pills that really work instead, who knows?
( not that I need them, but sometimes I feel sorry for other people )

If anyone thought there was promising research in that area, they'd already be funding it. The space program has projects that people are actually willing to fund because they have commercial applications.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 08:40 PM, Elfer wrote:

No, more like how everyone knows that this is true, which is why companies have prospecting departments.

Because that brings in potential cash in 5 years, not in 500.

Right, that's because one generation has to start it.

Virtue is its own reward!

Based on that principle, I think the people after me will find a lot of rewarding virtue that I will have left for them to have. I am a giving person as you see.

I know that dumping a small pile of money onto a large pile of money

As I said: that assumes that all current research for things that we actually can use within 20 years is so well-funded we might as well chuck cash into space.

Like if we weren't spending that money on NASA, we'd be making sequels to Batman Forever.

The problem here is obviously that ageing is not our only issue. Along with that we also have to cure every single terminal disease that there is, otherwise people are still fucked. Again, research takes time, and you're probably going to die, space exploration or no. Deal with it.

But if we don't start today!!1111111

they have commercial applications.

The why does the government have to fund it?
No one's saying private industry can't chuck as much money as they want into Moonraker lazers.

[Elfer]

At 1/10/10 08:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/10/10 08:40 PM, Elfer wrote: The problem here is obviously that ageing is not our only issue. Along with that we also have to cure every single terminal disease that there is, otherwise people are still fucked. Again, research takes time, and you're probably going to die, space exploration or no. Deal with it.

But if we don't start today!!1111111

But we have started already. There's people researching anti-aging techniques and medications right now.

they have commercial applications.

The why does the government have to fund it?
No one's saying private industry can't chuck as much money as they want into Moonraker lazers.

The government funds NASA because of the military applications, as well as the international relations things. They gotta look tough in space, you know?

[TheThing]

At the current moment, space exploration should be the last thing on our minds.

But if we had a better economy and had the ability to get some kind of resource from the moon or Mars, then I'd say we should. And I'm not talking about gold; I mean if we could harvest water from the moon or Mars in order to create a base there for scientific research, I'd be okay with it.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 1/10/10 02:20 PM, GOTHCLAWZ wrote: Well, although the amount of money spent in astronomy is considerable, there will always be poverty around the world. Humans won't be around for long compared to the length of time that the Universe has been around for. I think we should give money to those who need it most, but I don't think we should just stop the exploration of space.

fuck the poor its there problem. I say explore space it would be far more profitable in the long run we could extract minerals from asteroids or other planets than use Earths or colonize on different planets like terraforming Mars. it would make humanity last a whole lot longer.

India went to the moon not long ago & locals complained that the money could have been spent of their poverty. It might have been slightly unfair that India decide to put showing off ahead of there poor citizens because people have already been to the moon. But space travel is important.

[poxpower]

At 1/10/10 10:20 PM, Elfer wrote:

But we have started already. There's people researching anti-aging techniques and medications right now.

Not enough.
I demand much more.

The government funds NASA because of the military applications, as well as the international relations things. They gotta look tough in space, you know?

I'm mainly against manned space exploration.
Sounds useless as hell.

[gumOnShoe]

Investment in space creates Jobs. We should do it.

Also, pox, you're short sighted, perhaps by choice, but short sighted all the same. You don't have to believe in an afterlife to have common sympathy for your fellow man and the future of the human race.

I want someone to have the experience of going to space and colonizing somewhere, simply because I can't. :(

[chairmankem]

I think from a sociological and political standpoint it would be healthy to set up colonies off-world. Forget extinction scenarios. Suppose Earth governments became more repressive or backward for whatever reason. A space colony may be the leading or sole bastion of scientific research and exploration. Ultimately, we should look for a permanent presence: a colony isn't just there for short term gain. It is an extension of civilization and human culture, and a beacon of opportunity.

Sure, there are near-term benefits but the ultimate objectives should be long-term. The technology for it exists already, or will exist soon. The will and drive exists, but not the capital. I don't see why the first steps shouldn't begin in the first two decades.

[Elfer]

At 1/11/10 12:56 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/10/10 10:20 PM, Elfer wrote:

But we have started already. There's people researching anti-aging techniques and medications right now.

Not enough.
I demand much more.

Then go do it yourself you big baby. The main thing that small research fields are missing is human capital.

The government funds NASA because of the military applications, as well as the international relations things. They gotta look tough in space, you know?

I'm mainly against manned space exploration.
Sounds useless as hell.

Actually that's probably the one that provides the most commercially and industrially useful technology. You know, because there's actually people on those missions.

[Conal]

At 1/10/10 11:41 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: fuck the poor its there problem.

I hope you don't mind me saying this but that was the most ignorant, greedy, right winged 6 worded quote I have ever read on Newgrounds. Nothing personal.

I say explore space it would be far more profitable in the long run we could extract minerals from asteroids or other planets than use Earths or colonize on different planets like terraforming Mars. it would make humanity last a whole lot longer.

Yeah, if we get to Mars they think we can make fuel out of the rocks. One of the missions that was being planned was setting up a long line of satellites with fuel in them, then having the pilots extract fuel from the rocks on Mars to take off again.

[poxpower]

At 1/11/10 06:36 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Investment in space creates Jobs. We should do it.

Anything creates jobs.

I want someone to have the experience of going to space and colonizing somewhere, simply because I can't. :(

gaytacular

At 1/11/10 09:56 AM, Elfer wrote:

Then go do it yourself you big baby. The main thing that small research fields are missing is human capital.

I'm a stupid artist... lame.

Actually that's probably the one that provides the most commercially and industrially useful technology.

And deaths.

fillerfillerfillerfillerfillerfiler

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/11/10 05:55 PM, poxpower wrote: gaytacular

Just stop using velcro, microwaves, smoke detectors, cordless power tools, the new less painful braces for teeth, fogless goggles, infrared sensors (including ear thermometers), thermal boots & gloves, hand held video cameras, and of course your computer. Computers were originally shrunk down in order to fit in space ships. Swipe cards (cred & debit & gift cards). Graphite guitars. Graphite pool sticks. Etc

[chairmankem]

Why not go into space because we want to go into space? Regardless of the economic and scientific justifications, the point is to get there.

[Iron-Claw]

At 1/10/10 12:25 AM, McPaper wrote:

It would certainly be nice to see at least one important manned mission in my lifetime

How old are you? couldn't be that old could ya?;)

That's something I've been meaning to bring up here. It was always my dream to be an Astronaut and if not be the one to put the first footprints on Mars at least part of the crew. This dream, however, was forced to be put on the shelf for the sixth and final time when I flunked out of the same 94 level Algebra class at my Community College for the third time in a row.:( Thing that pisses me off the most is that by their standards any class below the 100 level course qualifies as a High School level course by their logic I've only a Middle School education. At this rate by 2020 they'll be teaching Precalculus in Preschool!

This is what I have been saying: We must work together all powers capable of Space Flight work together in space regardless of what's going on below. The Americans should be working together with Russia, France, Japan and China as well. Now everybody hates this working together with China but it's the only way with our budget deficit we are not going to beat them to the moon or even Mars we've got to join them put aside our petty differences. The space program has always been an endeavor of peace and we should keep it that way.

Something NASA and everyone else should be considering is the negative effects of long term exposure to zero gravity so build a next generation ship with artificial gravity. this is not too difficult to do just build a section of the ship that spins fast enough to produce 1 G. My idea was to built the entire ship in one long tube with everything you needed on the inside positioned on the walls and spin the entire ship. Much easier.

[poxpower]

At 1/11/10 08:20 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/11/10 05:55 PM, poxpower wrote: gaytacular

Just stop using velcro,

Invented in 1941

microwave

Invented in 1947

smoke detectors,

Invented in 1890

cordless power tools,

NASA invented neither batteries nor power tools.

the new less painful braces for teeth,

Wha

fogless goggles,

Yeah I think they got that one. FUCK YEAH, FOGLESS GOGGLES PEOPLE! WEEEEEE

infrared sensors

Can't find any mention of NASA inventing that.

thermal boots & gloves,

NASA didn't come up with the concept of insulation.
For reference see: Polar bears, blubber.

hand held video cameras,

What kind? Those have been around since the 20s

and of course your computer. Computers were originally shrunk down in order to fit in space ships.

Sounds like bullshit to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
There's not a simgle mention of NASA other than they own the computer in the picture.

Swipe cards (cred & debit & gift cards).

Nope, invented by IBM as a security measure not specifically for NASA ( or even non-specifically ).

Graphite guitars. Graphite pool sticks. Etc

Wha? No mention of NASA relating to the use of graphite either.

If you want to start naming great inventions that came about from government programs, let's start with the frickin' army.