- #71
MotoH
- 51
- 2
Well at least from what I hear the Europa missions are still a go.
Why? We can only spend large amounts of money on human exploration?D H said:Neither Congress nor the President thinks like you. Good thing that; if that were the case, NASA's budget would be a pittance of its current state.
Do you mean to say that it's programs would yield a lousy public relations return on investment? If you send rovers to distant bodies specifically as precursors to future manned missions, and then don't ever carry out manned missions then what you say would make sense. But what I am saying is that projects like Hubble and the Cassini-Huygens mission (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/introduction/" ) should be our models for the kind of science that NASA should be doing in space.D H said:NASA is a part of federal budget function 250. It has to compete with other science and technology programs. Without the added "oomph" that humans will follow, NASA's science programs yield a lousy scientific return on investment.
Ummm - who determined that PO was practical? By what measure? Has is it been demonstrated - even on scale?ideasrule said:There already is a fully practical method for fast interplanetary travel and even relativistic interstellar travel: http://en.wikipedia.org/Project_Orion" . Does that mean it'll be pursued? No.
hamster143 said:*IF* that's true, that change has a bigger scope than just "not going to the Moon by 2020". If the Constellation program and Ares I / Ares V are killed, that means that NASA won't have *ANY* proprietary means of getting stuff into orbit for the next 10+ years, and it will depend on third party systems (either SpaceX or Russian Soyuz/Proton rockets) to send anything, including the most trivial robotic spacecraft .
Correct. NASA does spend a significant amount of money on Earth observatories; those Earth observatories have an obvious and high return on investment. Without the motivation that people will follow, what exactly is the return on investment for monies spent on planetary science and astrophysics? Think like an economist or a politician, not a scientist.robertm said:Why? We can only spend large amounts of money on human exploration?
No. I am saying those unmanned programs have a lousy return on investment compared to science done on the Earth. How much research could the National Science Foundation (another element of budget function 250) do with $720 million (the amount by which the Mars Science Lab is over-budget)? With $2.35 billion (the total estimated cost of the MSL)? With $2.5 billion (NASA's estimated contributions to Cassini-Huygens)?Do you mean to say that it's programs would yield a lousy public relations return on investment? If you send rovers to distant bodies specifically as precursors to future manned missions, and then don't ever carry out manned missions then what you say would make sense. But what I am saying is that projects like Hubble and the Cassini-Huygens mission (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/introduction/" ) should be our models for the kind of science that NASA should be doing in space.
I think that's a very difficult comparison to make, because it compares the Earth based with that which may have been impossible anywhere else other than space, or at least been delayed for decades. See, e.g., http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/gallery/2009-05/gallery-top-10-hubble-scientific-discoveries" , etc; COBE's background radiation, etc. NSF could perhaps do a lot more with that money, but it couldn't do those things with all of NASA's budget.D H said:Correct. NASA does spend a significant amount of money on Earth observatories; those Earth observatories have an obvious and high return on investment. Without the motivation that people will follow, what exactly is the return on investment for monies spent on planetary science and astrophysics? Think like an economist or a politician, not a scientist. No. I am saying those unmanned programs have a lousy return on investment compared to science done on the Earth. How much research could the National Science Foundation (another element of budget function 250) do with $720 million (the amount by which the Mars Science Lab is over-budget)? With $2.35 billion (the total estimated cost of the MSL)? With $2.5 billion (NASA's estimated contributions to Cassini-Huygens)?
Vorry, vit vas vo vopen vended vand vague, vo I veleted vit.DaveC426913 said:mheslep is a vampire!
The above post by mheslep is ... invisible.
If I try to quote it, my post is empty. Even if I multi-quote, others show up. mhelsp's does not.[EDIT: Oh. All better now. You were busy editing your post. What's really wild is that, for just a moment, there were two post #77's both by mheslep, both completely different.]
Almost certainly so -- assuming, that is, that past performance is a predictor of future success. Collider physics has contributed a lot to both our nations defense and to our everyday life. Eventually the expense of pushing the envelope to make a bigger, badder collider will reach a point of diminishing returns. The next step beyond the LHC might well be that point of diminishing return.Ivan Seeking said:Will a collider likely produce any results that will be significant to my life? Almost certainly not, but it is still worthy of the effort.
That is exactly the comparison that the executive and legislative branches make. They have to decide what kinds of science are worthy of large funding and what kinds aren't.mheslep said:I think that's a very difficult comparison to make, because it compares the Earth based with that which may have been impossible anywhere else other than space, or at least been delayed for decades.
There is not a whole lot of archeological research that be done with a particle collider. The government funds a lot more research in physics than it does in archaeology because Congress critters and the President see a lot more value returned from that physics research than they do from archeology.NSF could perhaps do a lot more with that money, but it couldn't do those things with all of NASA's budget.
There is absolutely no point in sending more humans to the moon, unless there is a vast already-enriched lode of unobtanium up there. The possibility of finding traces of frozen water in the bottom of a shadowed crater near the moon's poles is such a thin excuse that it does not even bear repeating, much less actual support. Let's use engineering studies and cost estimates to evaluate such projects, not just Rah, Rah, cheerleading.MotoH said:What is the point of anything we do?
If it was possible to go to the moon for cheaper. Would you do it? Can you honestly say you wouldn't want to see man on the moon in your lifetime? Have you lost all sense of imagination and mystery?
If you can truly say that you wouldn't want to see a man on the moon (for cheaper of course) in your lifetime, you might as well be a rock.
(not pointing this at you cyrus, just an open question)
Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.turbo-1 said:There is absolutely no point in sending more humans to the moon,
How? Apart from burying any permanent base, we cannot protect moon-residents from solar flares, mass-ejections, etc. Once we get out beyond the protection of the magnetic field in which our ancestors developed, we are in big trouble.DaveC426913 said:Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.
MotoH said:What is the point of anything we do?
If it was possible to go to the moon for cheaper. Would you do it? Can you honestly say you wouldn't want to see man on the moon in your lifetime? Have you lost all sense of imagination and mystery?
If you can truly say that you wouldn't want to see a man on the moon (for cheaper of course) in your lifetime, you might as well be a rock.
(not pointing this at you cyrus, just an open question)
DaveC426913 said:Research into off-Earth habitation engineering would benefit.
MotoH said:Why cure poverty? Since the dawn of man there has always been the fortunate and the unfortunate. It isn't human nature to care for others, so why start now? What makes helping other people any more important than our own personal satisfaction/achievement?
Cyrus said:...?
MotoH said:Explain to me why poverty is any more important than the advancement of the United States in showing off our might?
(I don't personally believe the things I am typing) But why should you say that helping others is more important than personal gain, since personal gain has been the status quo since the dawn of man.
Cyrus said:I disagree with that. People should learn family planning, and we should reduce the population size on the planet to a level that is sustainable without having billions in poverty. Do that, then cure major health diseases, then travel to the moon.
D H said:Almost certainly so -- assuming, that is, that past performance is a predictor of future success. Collider physics has contributed a lot to both our nations defense and to our everyday life. Eventually the expense of pushing the envelope to make a bigger, badder collider will reach a point of diminishing returns. The next step beyond the LHC might well be that point of diminishing return.
Cyrus said:But there is still the basic unanswered question. Ok, so you go to mars. Then what, the Sun?
There's still the problem of a lack of oxygen, food, climate, to name a few, on mars.
Solve diseases, develop better preventative medicines
take care of global warming
produce clean drinkable water
these are much more worthwhile - tangible - things people need to see done.
I seriously doubt any of the rocks you find in Mars will of medicinal or material value.
Cyrus said:I'm not sure why imagination and mystery comes into play on spending my tax money during these times of economic hardships. Spend that money on something more relevant, like finding a cure to cancer.
zomgwtf said:Like I agree completely that it would be the greatest discovery of mankind but what use will we have of it? The knowledge that we're not alone? Most people already assume that anyways... I doubt merely 'proving' it will make any difference.
Ivan Seeking said:Something like 1 out of 3 Mars missions have failed. And those missions were orders of magnitude simpler than a manned mission.
turbo-1 said:The possibility of finding traces of frozen water in the bottom of a shadowed crater near the moon's poles is such a thin excuse that it does not even bear repeating, much less actual support.
ideasrule said:This has been mentioned before, but launching from the Moon is much easier than launching from Earth. With a moon base, space exploration becomes easy, and that includes launching satellites into Earth orbit.
robertm said:You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?
You do realizes that the moon does not have the natural resources that we take for granted here on earth?