Just finished typing my thread and Windows decided to érror' grrrrr!

Anyway, I am a newie here and I must debate the topic below for the negative team. First reaction was 'for' the statement, but now I'm not so sure.

"Spending billions on 'space travel' is wrong, while millions of people on earth lack adequate food and water"

There is so much I could possibly discuss - how would the money be spent anyway? foreign aid does not seem to be working to well. Then, should the quest for knowledge be hindered in the face of urgent issues that need addressing? Then again, how much is the gov't actually spending on space travel/exploration/quest for knowledge? If it is a substantial amount (seems over the top, which I'm guessing it is) then is it really necessary, when so many are suffering? I am a strong advocate for human/environmental rights but I can't justify cutting scientific budgets if the money is not going to be put to best practical use. Sorry!, so many questions and no answers :confused: , so I look forward to a response.

Should we keep on spending billions on useless wars?
Should we keep on spending billions on useless toys?
Should we keep on spending billions on junk food?
And on & on you could go

As for foreign aid, it has always been a scam!

Just a point, Food and Water being a problem isn't down to money being absent, it's down to Corrupt people in corrupted lands.

Those people don't have to sit round starving, they could grow crops or dig wells, but they might suffer from Warlords or War Ministers starving them on purpose to try and kill them off or lessen their resolve for opposing like they were some sort of pest infestation.

When money is spent on researching into how to travel in one of the harshest conditions (A vacuum), it's not just a challenge for science, it's a step closer towards mankind actually wants to eventually head.

We could probably pump all are money in, to trying to liberate some small countries and end up with all of them turned into Military policed states like Iraq (Where the people still haven't reasoned with what people have tried to established, freedom and democracy) however it's reasons just like that which means it would be a waste of time.

Anyway the sooner we get off this rock the better at the current escalation of problems.

I agree that we need to get out of this gravity well and get some of our eggs in other baskets but I'm not for just throwing money at something such as manned presence on Mars when it would be more fruitful to approach getting industries going at the Lagrange points. As it stands, if you get a chance to see John Glenn's assesment at the commision hearings concerning the moon to Mars project http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33665 , I believe you can see some hard core evidence that Bush's desires result in squelching the most fruitful science for an exercise in vanity and distraction from his grossly inadequate policies in virtually every field.

I think money spend on space exploration is worth it, but not space travel. It costs way too much money to send a living human body into space, and it is unnecessary. Exploration of space can be done with robotic probes. The recent mars missions prove the value of this approach. If the debate is wether the money should better be spend on poor people, as opposed to any space program at all, I think the case can be made that space programs provide jobs. Sometimes this research spawns whole new industries.

Not just industries, but whole new inventions, for instance Vacuum packing food is "space age", and that means the food can store longer at locations like places that are suffering famines. So you could say that the space race potentially fed them (Otherwise the food would have spoiled)

Robotics into space exploration is the best way to go for now. Perhaps in the future we will attain more speed and better radiation guards for humans to travel and cheaper ways to do so. The Earth needs more help and that is where all efforts should be focused for the time being. More nations should also be given the opportunity to help put together a voyage to Mars and beyond for one nation can't do it alone, the costs are staggering.

A cool read

Kennedy's speech (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/25/kennedy.moon/speech.excerpts.pdf)

Have times changed so much.. Generation X, the arm chair explorers, how sad..

Man belongs in space…

Having people in space was a political goal, not a scientific one. These days our senses can be sent to inhospidable environments- not only space, but the depths of the largely unexplored oceans. This technique of remote exploration is the wave of the future, many more missions can be accomplished with less cost, and less or no risk to human life. It was the risk of death that made the astronauts of early space missions heros. We should get over this ego trip, and spend our money more wisely. Even the military is moving in this direction with unmanned aircraft. Armchair explorers are now the real explorers. Communications technology is creating a paradigm shift in many areas. Surgery is now being done remotely, with the specialist operating instruments from any place in the world. Is this "armchair" surgery or real surgery?

Not billions. Trillions.

Once private enterprise gets a firm hold and SSTO gets cheap, we're there, dudes. Until then NASA can have their fun, I suppose, but as with most things the government (any government) really isn't the best way to go about it, as the waste inherent in bureaucracy is a significant impediment.

Humans are in space and are prepairing to journey to Mars one day. You need to crawl before you walk when going out into space safely and that is what we are doing now. We already have a ISS space station that will house 8 people one day when it gets built completly. Going to Mars will take almost 2 years. Many problems are ahead to solve for that journey.

Yes, we should spend money on space travel. It's the next step in discovery and life, period -- the Space Age. To be against space travel is no different than being against all the other major discoveries of the past. Many may not feel ready to advance into that next Age, but it's been no different in the past. Life is about surival of the fittest so those not ready are left behind just as the millions of people in the world lacking food and water are. Not everyone can be saved. Harsh, but true.

- N

Man needs a frontier. It's a safety valve. Even though the vast majority of people, even highly dissatisfied people, never actually kiss off civilization and go live on the frontier, the fact that it is there makes everyone feel better. "Well, I can put up with this a little longer. If it gets bad enough I can always go to. . . ."

In ancient times the frontier was merely out past the far edge of civilization, where the "barbarians" lived. Eventually the boundaries of civilization expanded pretty far. People had to go all the way to the boondocks of Africa, Malayo-Polynesia, Australia, or the aboriginal areas of the New World to "get away from it all."

Now those boondocks have practically disappeared. There are cities of 15 million people in Africa. Indonesia's population hit 300 million. Someone told me that São Paulo is now the world's largest metropolitan area, although I don't know if that is true. More than a million people inhabit both Phoenix and Las Vegas.

I imagine the Aussies already know this, but secretly, every American man has always said deep down inside, "If it gets to the point that it really sucks here, I'll just go to Australia." Since the Bali bombing, we've had to face up to the fact that no matter how much we want it not to be true, Australia is now, officially, part of the "modern world" with all that that implies. Not only did we weep for you Australians, we also had to weep for the death of a fantasy that kept many of us sane. That was one hell of an outrage. I think to many American males it was almost as bad as 9/11, albeit in a different way. You were the us that we wish we were, if that makes any sense.

The only real outback left is Alaska/Siberia, and that is one hell of a frontier. Being a disgruntled city dweller was perhaps never enough qualification to ensure survival on the frontier, but now you can't even lie to yourself about it.

Gene Roddenberry was right. Space is the final frontier. We'd better make it possible to treat it as such. A world with six billion inhabitants and no escape valve is a pretty dangerous place.

And yes, I did say that it was "man" who needs a frontier. Historically it's always been men who say "shove this place" and move away. Historically, women have always been much more willing to try to make a good life where they are.

we piss cash away everywhere, space exploration IMO is a better place than most to do it.

Fraggle Rocker,

I agree space is an important frontier but hardly the final one. We know almost nothing about the 2/3's of the planet currently under water. I'm not saying don't explore space, just don't ignore our planet either. We've learned a lot about earth but not nearly everything, not even a tenth of whats here.

I agree space is an important frontier but hardly the final one. We know almost nothing about the 2/3's of the planet currently under water. I'm not saying don't explore space, just don't ignore our planet either. We've learned a lot about earth but not nearly everything, not even a tenth of whats here.
Absolutely agree. This being sciforums, where we talk about all variants of science, I doubt you're going to find anybody who disagrees.

The catch is, of course, what priority we afford each discipline. ;)

The catch is, of course, what priority we afford each discipline. ;)

true enough, that's really where the debate begins.

Once private enterprise gets a firm hold and SSTO gets cheap, we're there, dudes.

Is that ever going to happen though?

Is launching a ship out into the void ever going to afford some attractive profitability to investors?

That's the only possible stimulus I see for this business.


Man does not live on glory alone, after all.
Where's the pay off going to enter the scheme?


EDIT:

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2038059.stm) article, written on events relevant to the topic, is rather interesting.

It reads sensibly enough.
... today, the "win, win" sectors are those with applications that can be used on Earth such as telecommunications, GPS navigation systems and broadband.

The other sectors that require more risk include rocket building and remote sensing.

(What is "remote sensing"?)

That's all understandable, but I'm certainly not going to believe that the business community is head-over-heels excited about less practical applications, like space travel.

A recent poll by Zogby International found that 7% of wealthy Americans would pay $20m for a two-week space vacation, while 19% would spend $100,000 for a 15 minute sub-orbital flight.

The $64,000 question, however, is whether or not the venture capital industry is willing to get on board.

I honestly don't see how 7% 'of wealthy Americans' or even 19% thereof is a very wise target group.

Besides, they may talk now, but will they fly later? It seems very frivolous to me, and rich people aren't known to stay rich doing frivolous things.

we must inhabit mars if we are to save the animal species of earth, in 20 years 1,500 species of animal will be extinct due to pollution, global warming, deforestation, the only solution is to move humans to mars where we can on;ly harm ourselves, is it fair that the animals should suffer for us

I think we should occupy mars too but I'm afraid it'd take centuries if it's even possible to make mars habitable to all but a handfull of people/animals. The best we could do in the near (or mid) term is store their genetics and hope. It's way, way cheaper as well and we're not even doing that much so don't get your hopes up.

All the money that the American and other governments are dumping into space research is not going to get us into space. It will make it possible for some entrepreneur to succeed. The return of resources on this investment should be on the same order as that little trip to India that Spain financed in 1642.

I could see tourism being able to make a profit in the near future but resources? It's just WAY too expensive to get out of our gravity well at present and there's nothing out there we can't get down here. Even the most difficult mining environments on earth (arctic, ocean floor, etc.) are a cake walk compared to mining in space, at least as technology stands right now.

Robotic exploration is safer, cheaper, and faster to develop. With further technical advances, sending robots makes sense in the long run. So why not stick with it from the start?

Think! Suppose you want to mine that solid platinum and gold asteroid. Would you rather send astronauts with jackhammers or would you land robotic engines on the asteroid and crash it into the moon for safekeeping?

Would you land robotic engines on the asteroid and crash it into the moon for safekeeping?Yikes! There'd better not be any human colonies on the moon when you do that! Considering what a couple of doozies have done to Earth. Even without an atmosphere, hydrosphere, or liquid core, the moon is a lot smaller and the impact will be proportionately more severe for it. I'm not sure I'd even want to be on Earth when that happens!

Even the most difficult mining environments on earth (arctic, ocean floor, etc.) are a cake walk compared to mining in space, at least as technology stands right now.

I thought mining the deepest parts of the ocean floor was harder then in space due to the massive amounts of pressure?

So far NO, that is NO.... gold, platinum , silver or any other precious metals have been located on any cosmic body we have explored! All that asteroids are made of is nickle and iron plus trace metals which are not precious.

So far NO, that is NO.... gold, platinum , silver or any other precious metals have been located on any cosmic body we have explored! All that asteroids are made of is nickle and iron plus trace metals which are not precious.

Heh, forget gold, platinum, and silver; I want that planet made of diamond! :p

- N

I thought mining the deepest parts of the ocean floor was harder then in space due to the massive amounts of pressure?

harder than mining an astroid or a different planet? no.

Not only is it easier (as technology stands today) to mine EVERY part of the earth, the financiacial/technological difference between terrestrial and extraterestrial mining can't even be reasonably compared.

As of today, it's way, WAY, easier to exploit the earth.

Heh, forget gold, platinum, and silver; I want that planet made of diamond! :p

- N

That "diamond" is worthless as are the diamonds we have here on Earth unless you use them for cutting or drilling purposes. Diamonds are artifically inflated by DeBeers so they can 'control" the costs of the selling prices. It seems funny that people really think that a rock, which is all a diamond actually is, is a valueable thing to have. In actuality it is really worthless to the majotity of people who see it as what it is, a rock.

Today you can actually get man made diamonds for a few dollars that are actually flawless, brighter and better quality than natural ones for alot cheaper. The great thing about man made diamonds is no one can tell the differences unless they are experts in the gem business! So people spend millions on rocks that they think, because of DeBeers , are valuable.

i heard that by 2400 theyll be so many people on earth that well all be stood side by side and so much electricity will be being produced that the earth will glow red.
if you want to stay here, be my guest.

-logically unsound-

a little funy but i think he's got the right idea we've already over populated the earth, sooner or later we're gonna have 2 make a choice to either leave or go down with the ship.

no seriosly, its true, i just remembered itd from steven hawkings 'universe in a nutshell'

I heard that by 1999, a nuclear explosion will drive the moon out of orbit, and it will wander the universe discovering new and wondrous things.

well i think he/she was wrong *patronizing voice*

i think he/she was wrong 2 *same patronizing voice* + :bugeye:

no, my thing was based on fact, yours wasnt.

Its funny how the government claims our national debt is at a new net low, 8,100,000,000,000.00...does that sound low? It's even funnier to think who will be paying for the debt, and this new space exploration idea.

Its funny how the government claims our national debt is at a new net low, 8,100,000,000,000.00...does that sound low? It's even funnier to think who will be paying for the debt, and this new space exploration idea.


The children of today that are 10 years old now will be paying the debt off for their entire lifetimes when they start to work! That means they will have to pay taxes in excess of 45 percent just to be able to reduce that debts interest.

thats why i said its funny how the government "claims" our national debt is at a new net low.

The asteroid belt was created when a couple of moon-sized planets smashed together and the insides of the moons were spilled out. Some of these asteroids could be valuable for space mining entrepreneurs. For example, see:

http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/issue.php/0/us/USA++13

Let the lesser countries deal with there problems, Let the rich countries spend it ho they want. I think the problems will always be there, so you might as well explore the universe and learn something new.

Why not put money into "green" tech?

The justification of space research is that we need more stuff and more space. Why not find out ways to do more with less? Why not work on improving earth, and not worry about terraforming Mars?

I think space research is a big waste. Even though it may eventually pay off, we will have thoroughly trashed this planet. We don't even know what's in our own oceans.

So we'd mine asteroids for gold, silver and iron.

You can't eat gold, and you can't get energy out of any of these asteroids. Mining in space for elements we have easy access to, right here on terra forma is idiotic. Why would people even consider thinking such stupid ideas?

Because we can; because using the vast resources of the solar system is our 'manifest destiny'.
Here is the vision of Anders Sandberg, a founding member of the Orion's Arm project, of a future society living on, and between, every world in our system, looking to the stars for new worlds to explore.

http://www.orionsarm.com/whitepapers/vision.html

There is enough of every element in our solar system to build millions of artificial worlds,
capable of housing and feeding a trillion people;

Using the power of our sun we can make this vision a reality; there is plenty of it - the energy of the sun represents the same amount of energy as released by the annihilation of two million tonnes of antimatter per second.

And that is just one sun among billions.

Colonising space will have a long, difficult, expensive start up period; but once the various resources of the solar system and of the various stellar systems of our galaxy have been gathered into a more usable formation then our civilisation will start to realise its true potential.

If billions upon billions are going to be invested (actually we're talking of trillions as to our accomplishing anything surviving the likes of Mars), those amounts need to directly benefit humanity, and that horrific investment must include the lower 99.9% of humanity and not just the upper 0.1% that doesn't require any benefits, other than more money and energy resources (every last drop) as obtained from the lower 99.9%.

Thus far, there as been absolutely nothing Mars related, or of what's further away that humanity has ever benefited from in the past, nor is there anything on the future books that'll provide even a penny of actual worth per billion dollars invested into anything Mars, and much less of whatever is further away.

The moon is offering something all together different, whereas there's loads of energy benefits, plus earth sciences and of what the moon itself within has to offer humanity:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

Except there's a wee bit of a nasty little problem with any notion of getting ourselves onto and back from the moon: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

Venus has also been offering humanity something all together different:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm.htm
and
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-venus.htm

And there's lots more within the UPDATE page.
Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

According to this perfectly fine group; http://ri.essortment.com/newplanets_rsma.htm
"With our current technology, a trip to the nearest star system would take over 40,000 years"
and of so many others claiming similar proposals that are not offering much better off.

Of which this obviously isn't even pertaining to the Sirius star system at 8.7 light years distant and counting, as that's a good 100,000 years worth, while averaging at ten fold better off velocity than we can sustain a probe, much less of any manned expedition as of today, and that's without such efforts first taking that decade worth of acceleration loops past our sun. And to think, just what in the hell have we for shielding (physical as well as radiation worthy) that sort of 2,000+ generation (one-way) biological expedition?

Instead of continually blowing billions upon billions, and of wasting decades worth of talents and resources getting such technology and efforts off the ground, that's why I've focused upon photon communications, and of getting ourselves up to the efficient standard of utilizing such affordable, environmentally clean and obviously speedy packet exchanges, rather than risking all there is upon any sort of physical accomplishments, outside of what's situated right nextdoor (moon/Venus, but NOT the likes of Mars or further).

Although, going for what our moon has to offer, and of what's situated upon Venus is just fine and dandy, as in affordable, doable and certainly worthy of what the lower 99.9% of humanity (apparent scum of the Earth) could use to survive upon, in spite of the other 0.1% of absolute incest cloned borgs that obviously couldn't give a flying puck about any other humanity, outside of their own sorry butts.

The moon/lunar Space Elevator topic (several pages worth of viable topics) offers something for everyone that's related to improving our chances/odds of our ever interplanetary-communicating with ET, and/or of getting ourselves safely to/from the likes of Mars, though preferably Venus. As for accommodating that sort of honest quest, as such we'll soon be in need of a darn good Lunar Space Elevator, or the GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) as for accommodating the ultimate space depot, and/or nearby nullification gateway in the sky:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm

BTW; there's at least a hundred perfectly good and honset topics related to this LSE-CM/ISS, of which I'd like others to tackle as many as they see fit. Anyone anti-moon, or even anti-Venus will be exterminated on the spot, as in the most profecient manor possible. So, don't expect my persomal favor returning to soften if you intend to block or pretend to being something other than whom you are, that is if you know what's good for yourself.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

Huhh... there is some new research on Quantum mechanics that migh someday, not extremely far away, make avaiable instant teletransportation.... So... other stars will become possible... ;)

No, seriously, I think nature is very generous with us. Everything that we need we have. The universe is exactly how it should be to accomodate us (even if it takes some time to figure it out). It is quite interesting.... ;)

And as for giving food and water to poor people, and solving our problems here on earth, I think that is certainly important. But I would lie to say that space exploration is definetely more important then wars, and all the useless junk that we produce. If we weren't wasting so much money with our vanity and greed, we would have already solved all our problems and maybe we would even be set to reach the stars.... :cool:

TruthSeeker,
Why physically goto some godforsaken other star system?

For that matter, why even goto Mars or any further away than Venus?

Why chance running ourselves into that pesky dust-bunny at even 1%"c"?

Why travel at all when we can already communicate at nearly light speed within our local area code, and perhaps otherwise exceed the "c" limitation by a fairly good factor with what we already have to work with, thus making the likes of calling Sirius something that's doable within our lifetimes, and without roasting another batch of astronauts, nor of creating that 100:1 tonnage of artificial CO2 for mother Earth, as per tonne sent on it's way to god knows where?

I'm assuming that we're not limiting our explorations as to finding merely diatoms or microbes, though perchance heathens ott to be on the list. Isn't it most likely that others are actually smarter than humans. I mean, of how many countless examples of our utter stupidity and arrogance because of our dumb and dumber than dumbfounded incompetence do we need to show, as to prove that other life simply has got to be smarter than Earth humans?

Perhaps we should feel lucky that we're not being abducted for our protein value, or perhaps for some ET school or lab experiments. You know, like how we capture and/or breed animals for their torture and demise at learning how they survive. There's actually something quite perverted and sick about that last statement.

BTW; your "But I would lie to say that space exploration is definetely more important then wars" is either a nasty syntax error or typo, or did you really mean what you typed?

Never fear because, I make loads of dyslexic errors all the time, whereas half the time I don't even understand what I'd typed the day before.

bradguth,

One of the reasons why I support going to other planets is that I believe that our own planet already suffered enough with ourselves. With all the useless junk that we produce and the stupidities that we make, chances are that if we don't get out of here our planet may not quite survive.Even if we change our mentality, we already have a lot going on that we cannot stop and I really don't see a better way to do this.

I don't think it is bad to get out of here. I think it would be good to preserve our planet. We could also terraform other planets, giving us more space. The universe is big. We are insignificant. I think we could be able to trash the rest of the universe... :D

Hepefully we will learn a way to adapt our desires to the environment(s)...

BTW; your "But I would lie to say that space exploration is definetely more important then wars" is either a nasty syntax error or typo, or did you really mean what you typed?

Never fear because, I make loads of dyslexic errors all the time, whereas half the time I don't even understand what I'd typed the day before.
Read it in context ;)

And as for giving food and water to poor people, and solving our problems here on earth, I think that is certainly important. But I would lie to say that space exploration is definetely more important then wars, and all the useless junk that we produce. If we weren't wasting so much money with our vanity and greed, we would have already solved all our problems and maybe we would even be set to reach the stars....
I ment that it would be a lie if I would say that war and useless junk is more important then wars. I believe that if we are going to waste our money, then we should waste it on something that could work and be useful someday - space exploration.

Maybe nowdays it is not such a good business. But with a few technological advancements and lower costs, we could terraform other planets and expand our horizons.

Who wouldn't like to go to Mars on holidays? ;)



Why not read this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36462) ,btw...?

While I most certainly don't think we should just abandon the people who are suffering here on Earth, it should not be an impediment to space exploration.

The simple fact of the matter is there will always be suffering. There will always be poverty, there will always be hunger, and there will always be disease. Yes, ensure these problems are taken care of. No, don't take away from exploring this bright new frontier because of it.

It's human nature to explore, and as we advance socially and technologically,and as our population size skyrockets, we need to move on out into space. Without these expensive baby steps we're taking now, how would it be cheap and easy to make huge leaps in the future when it's needed?

Maybe robots can do a lot of the work for us out there, but at the end of the day, a human hand and a human eye is still needed sometimes. It's important for people to be out there as well.

Now with all that said, I do think things could be done more cheaply. However, I think this will soon be a reality as private industry has entered the space age. On a relative scale, is it really that much a waste of money? In under half a century, we've made the steps that will forever change the very nature of the human society. I don't think we can really put a price tag on that. Maybe we could, if it continues to be as expensive as it has been in the past...however, indications are that it won't.

private spenders should be allowed to spend their money however they choose, after all it is their money no matter how many people they kill to reach their monetary goal. as for the government spending so much money for space travel...well they're looking for a place for us to live after we ruin earth. what will probably happen is that all of the rich will simply take their money and fly to the new habitable planet and leave the sick, poor, and dying here. perhaps that will be a better thing. after all the rich people leave, there will be more food, less government, but there will still be poverty no matter what you do. humans have the need to destroy and their need makes them impovershed. so...should we spend money on space travel...? yes should we be worried about the future of space travel? no, because once all of the rich people get off of earth no one will be able to afford it, but you know there's going to be one person who stays on earth and takes over. move over hitler...the new pres is in.

All the problems U humans face today r because there is no 1 government and only single currency for your entire planet. Do that and see the change, follow the following
<IFrame src="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=542097#post542097" height=500 width=700></IFRAME>

i heard that by 2400 theyll be so many people on earth that well all be stood side by side and so much electricity will be being produced that the earth will glow red.
if you want to stay here, be my guest.

My dad was assured that by 1980 we'd have colonies on mars and flying cars (I recommend reading past claims, you'd be amazed by how sure everyone was). Surprise! in 2004, we've barely begun to scratch mars' surface.

Let's face it, humanity is REALLY bad at future speculation.

The second post already answered the question. The answer is: it's irrelevant. Instead of worrying about the pennies that NASA gets, or the privately-funded companies are spending on space exploration, let's first worry about the over-bloated runaway budget of national 'defense.'

The first step might be to make its priority defense, not offense. Anyone who wants to know why we should continue to invest in space exploration need look no further than Pale Blue Dot by Dr. Carl Sagan (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345376595/qid=1094266234/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-3734721-2923965).

mmm, okay, so we're hopeless gonners that are going to destroy whatever we touch? God has put us in this beautiful universe and the first thing we think is "don't touch you might frgin break something"? BS!! we are meant to touch, to smear, to do things that we don't think would, could, or should've happened. yes, we are probably primitive species compared to some races out in the void, but what the hell, why are people moaning on and on and on like we're not worthy or some shit? sorry to be annoyed, but it's these same kind of people that are Amish, hermits, nomads, and anybody else who is happy with the way things are and doesn't want ANY CHANGED. of course, weather we like it or not, everything changes anyway. the earth shifts, the stars will move, suns will die and others will come to glorious life, and all some people can say is oh, let's not get off the planet, we might break something, we can be fine like it is. we can be happy happy people for ever in complete and perpetual stupidity! guess what, no one's gonna wait for that to happen. it's not really a matter of IF we should put money into getting off this rock, it's more of a matter of WHEN it's going to happen, that the average lamen can venture into the great beyond

Just finished typing my thread and Windows decided to érror' grrrrr!

Anyway, I am a newie here and I must debate the topic below for the negative team. First reaction was 'for' the statement, but now I'm not so sure.

"Spending billions on 'space travel' is wrong, while millions of people on earth lack adequate food and water"

There is so much I could possibly discuss - how would the money be spent anyway? foreign aid does not seem to be working to well. Then, should the quest for knowledge be hindered in the face of urgent issues that need addressing? Then again, how much is the gov't actually spending on space travel/exploration/quest for knowledge? If it is a substantial amount (seems over the top, which I'm guessing it is) then is it really necessary, when so many are suffering? I am a strong advocate for human/environmental rights but I can't justify cutting scientific budgets if the money is not going to be put to best practical use. Sorry!, so many questions and no answers :confused: , so I look forward to a response.

We'll why not spend a few billion dollars on space travel/space exploration.....We're spending over 200 billion on Bush's (he calls himself the "Peace President") Iraq war!

Yob Atta :)

We'll why not spend a few billion dollars on space travel/space exploration.....We're spending over 200 billion on Bush's (he calls himself the "Peace President") Iraq war!

Allow me to correct your figure, my friend... :D
It has already been more then 1 trillion dollars.... :rolleyes: ;)

What if we spend all that money on medical science research and development of cheap wonder drugs ?

That would work too. Anything BUT wars and homocides.... :bugeye:
And cheap useless technological toys... :rolleyes:

I believe you can see some hard core evidence that Bush's desires result in squelching the most fruitful science for an exercise in vanity and distraction from his grossly inadequate policies in virtually every field.

Well there is your answer. Why go down scientific paths when you clearly have your political one. Just say space exploration clearly isn't feasible until a Democrat is President! You won't even need to bother with facts.

QUOTE=eburacum45]Because we can; because using the vast resources of the solar system is our 'manifest destiny'.
Here is the vision of Anders Sandberg, a founding member of the Orion's Arm project, of a future society living on, and between, every world in our system, looking to the stars for new worlds to explore.

http://www.orionsarm.com/whitepapers/vision.html

There is enough of every element in our solar system to build millions of artificial worlds,
capable of housing and feeding a trillion people;

Using the power of our sun we can make this vision a reality; there is plenty of it - the energy of the sun represents the same amount of energy as released by the annihilation of two million tonnes of antimatter per second.

And that is just one sun among billions.

Colonising space will have a long, difficult, expensive start up period; but once the various resources of the solar system and of the various stellar systems of our galaxy have been gathered into a more usable formation then our civilisation will start to realise its true potential.[/QUOTE]

OMG! What The Hell are you talking about, there is enough of every element in our solar system to build millions of artificial "Worlds" capable of housing and feeding a trillion people??? :confused: Like get real, for that to happen we are gonna have to wait another thousand years... :bugeye: i dont even think all that money theyre spending on that bullshit is worth it. Theyre are like hundreds of people dying every day and all this fucking people care about is the freaking space??? What about humanity??? What about all of those poor kids in africa that die every single day cuz they dont have anything to eat or a shelter or whatever... i mean, if space and war are our #1 worries now, then we are certainly getting nowwhere. We are gonna end up like shit. Lets all start to take care of the world around us and stop worrying about the fucking stars!!! and if that doesnt happen, well i hope u die bitch!

OMG u r so rite, i mean come on, for us to go to mars is gonna take like about another THOUSAND YEARS !!! thats bs!

omg, whats with the "stars and universe" anyway?!? thats bullshit, like seriously get real!

Space is, in my opinion, the only way we have a chance in hell of surviving as a species. I can think of too many ways to take out a civilization clinging to this rock like a frail lichen. It is much harder to kell something spread over several AUs of space.

Yes, we could use that money to feed the poor in Africa or fund cancer research. All is well until something natural or artificial happens to disturb our little mass delusion. A rock falls down on us or is directed by some suitably nasty government or we find out we aren't the only sapients in the universe or a thousand other things. Then we either go into a dark age or die out completely or something else significantly bad happens.

Also, controlling space puts you in a place of power over the rest of the technologically advanced world. Imagine somebody getting ahead and putting together one thing in space to systematically destroy all communication and GPS satellites that were not their own. Switzerland could take down the friggin US with something like that.

MizzAritzia: "omg, whats with the "stars and universe" anyway?!? thats bullshit, like seriously get real!"

Alright, sure, I'll get real and start watching monday night football and maybe even give a shit about Anna Nicole Smith's so-called success. You want to know reality?! It's a glutonus kid growing up with most of his entertainment and education flowing in from a screen (because teachers are some of the most underpaid professionals in this country) while he is tricked into trying to achieve a "social ideal" with overpriced and worthless clothes, shampoo, shoes, cell phones, drugs, and other useless SHIT to force the kid to either grow up to get a job that satisfies these addictions or go on welfare, all the while not giving a damn about a kid in africa who barely has enough resource to live, and dies before his 18th birthday because he tried to make a living in the sex trade and got AIDS. GET REAL?!?! Space is real, it's one of the few true goals we have left, it's what's going to help that kid in africa get a real job because Africa, having lots of land on the equator, would be prime real estate for space launches, stimulating massive economic growth on that continent. Problem solved. Get a clue.

I agree with weed eater.
Why would you target the money that is being spent on something productive such as any scientific research including space?

Shouldn't we be targeting the much more vast amounts of money being spent on worthless pursuits?


Feeding, housing, educating, protecting, nurturing, science are good ways to spend money. Including space research.

Worthless entertainment media, fashion, telemarketing garbage products, motor powered vehicles, junk food, oversized houses, video games, and tons of other overpriced designer worthless trash is where most of our money is going.

Why anybody would complain about money being spent towards something good when there is much much more relevant stuff we are throwing money away at is beyond me.

The exploration, and the eventual colonization of space will be a goal that is more worth it than it is not.