Hi, I am doing a project at school where I have to debate that we shouldn't be focusing so much on space exploration! This is really hard, cause I don't feel this at all, and the only reason I can think of is it being really expensive! I was wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction with links, or anything at all!! Thanks!! :)

Basically you should get a list of the supposed benefits, and then figure explain why you think those benefits are not worth the cost.

As a last resort "we have bigger things to worry about then shooting a dozen people into space."

Hi DivaKill. Welcome to sciforums. Be careful here as at all forums, zealots abound.

Some discussion about the particulars of space exploration have been posted in the following threads

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33665
John Glenn Rips the President a New A******

and

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35860
Poll: Back to the Moon

Looks like there is more that might be of interest to you in the general area "Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology."

I'm all for space exploration but I'm afraid present plans are essentially curtailing and stopping much of it and not pursuing the most rewarding expenditure of efforts.

what we need to do is put exploration on hold and start mining near earth objects... shoot mining in space would be easy once you get the infenstructure set up... have big tugs pull them into mining platforms and eat away 90% iron rocks and smelt them and send them back to earth... if it makes money then it will open the door to space... tax dollers will not open space to the masses...


so set up a orbital teather on the moon to ship supplys into space mine the dark side " out of sight out of mind.." and mine near earth objects... and figure out a way to clean up space junk... and figure out how to get hundrids of tons of cargo from space back to earth with out leaving giant holes in the ground...

the down side of this is that if a goverment wanted to they could smelt a million ton+ chunk if iron and put heat shielding on it then set it on a trajectory that is over a large city when it strakes the ground it would be like setting off a nuke... 2 million tons of iron smashing into the ground at 4 times the speed of sound would leave one hell of a hole... and if they filled the core of the rock with lets say 100gallions of hidrogen H3 " used to agument atomic bombs" you would have nukes with out the fall out... = bad for people that can't get into space...

Robotic space craft are being prepaired as we speak to visit other cosmic things in our solar system. There's going to be at least 25 missions that are already planned for with an additional 10 or more in the planning stages now. It is more usefull to have unmanned missions because they cost less and bring back billions of pieces of data about the cosmos, much much more than any one manned mission could ever accomplish. If a robot crashes or is lost we don't have to feel that we really hurt anyone because it was just a machine that can be replaced. We need to study and gather much more data before sending humans to Mars because it will be a 2 year voyage and there's no way to help them if trouble happens or radiation is so bad it can kill them. So many questions and few answers but we will be learning and in time humans will visit Mars.

DivaKili: There's an easy way to argue against space exploration as a primary focus - just suggest something easier, cheaper, and more fruitful instead.

Every few months, some giant lump of meat will wash up on the shore of someone's country. Usually they will defy genetic testing, will be too expensive to examine extensively, and will disintegrate and be disposed of because they weigh 1000 kg and no one wants to maintain a huge freezer just for the honor of taking care of "the blob".

Why do these things always confuse us? Why are they often considered newsworthy? Simple: we don't know anything about the ocean. Every time there is a deep-sea survey we find out things we didn't know about before - new species are discovered, just because they happen to swim in front of the camera.

Read this link about Hydrothermal Vents and the ecosystems that surround them:

http://www.fathom.com/course/10701047/session4.html

These creatures do not require sunlight in any form to survive, since they get their energy from the volcanic sulfides. (Notice that this is an example where a sea floor discovery is being used to further the study of Astrobiology.)

This was only discovered a few years ago.

Another pretty recent discovery - some brittle stars (starfish-like creatures) have calcite crystals in their skin that help them to see... with their entire skin. Studies of the stomach contents of local fish suggest that the fish much more easily find and eat brittle stars that do not have this adaptation.

Here's a link:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0822_starfisheyes.html

The lenses, as it turns out, have helpful optical properties that human science is now trying to replicate.

My point here is that the ocean is right there - strange forms of life, strange chemistry, strange physics - and you don't need a rocket to get there. Ocean exploration and experimentation requires only a fraction of the money needed for space exploration and, at least initially, will have far greater benefits in the expansion of human knowledge.

So there ya go.

If one tenth the investment (talent, energy resources and $) were devoted into something a whole lot closer to home, and mostly that which transpired specifically upon Earth, with the likes of our moon next in line and then Venus, lo and behold, all of the supposed spin-offs and/or secondary benefits would have been had, though at not 10% the overall energy resources and of not likely 1% the pollution to Earth because some of that Earthly investment on behalf of humanity would have greatly improved upon our human consumptions and/or resources of energy, and we'd already have the LSE-CM/ISS along with all of those nifty lunar resources at our disposal, and BTW, the likes of 9/11 would never have happened.

Such as, no such missions (robotic or otherwise) are investment "stand alone", as there is always the ongoing horrific cost of the pre-existing infrastructure, and then we have the aftermath of sustaining thousands of newly related folks in a very grand style, that which the lower 99.9% of humanity always gets to pay for in more ways than just dollars, and of no matters how much Arthur Andersen book cooking, all of resources and of whatever loot comes from the lower 99.9% of humanity. There's so much other that needs to be invested per mission, that's external to any mission (robotic probe or manned), that it would require volumes of pages list to list such a global impact.

If those usual billions upon billions are going to be invested (actually we seem to be talking of trillions as to accomplishing anything close to our surviving Mars), those amounts need to directly benefit humanity, and that benefit must include the lower 99.9% of humanity and not just those of the upper 0.1% that doesn't require any such benefits, nor are they willing to share with the lower 99.9% (scum of the Earth), other than for going after more money as always extracted (directly and/or indirectly) from the lower 99.9%, and then we have those 100 tonnes of artificial CO2 created per tonne that being delivered to Mars (if that's not global warming, then I don't know what is).

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

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

Except there's a wee bit of a 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 something all together different:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm.htm

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

Eventually the Earth will not be a habitable place, so we either learn to live in space or the human race will perish. We may have a long time left (or maybe not) either way our future is 'out there'............beyond the galaxies even.

Here is an interesting story about how NASA is researching genetically altering humans to be best adapted for life in space.

http://www.mtvdance.com/pages/the%20wizard%20of%20us.htm

kula

I have an idea for you. Space exploration is not good yet because we are still too dumb to deal with it... :rolleyes: :D
We need better technology, better plans and better ideologies before we can invest more in space exploration.... :p

Ahh.... and I'm in favour of space exploration.....

I'm also in favor of space exploration but I believe that we must invest more to save our own planet and all of its inhabitants before we travel away and screw up another planet.

I think we will eventually evolve into 2 species of humanity. Those that decide to stay on earth and try to preserve it/work with it, and a philosophical race of humans that believe survival in itself, is the purpose. The latter will migrate into space and evolve out of their gravity inspired bodies, their existance moving more towards thought than physical requirements.

Or would that be the philosophical race staying on earth whilst the mechanists migrate ?

kula

I think we will eventually evolve into 2 species of humanity. Those that decide to stay on earth and try to preserve it/work with it, and a philosophical race of humans that believe survival in itself, is the purpose. The latter will migrate into space and evolve out of their gravity inspired bodies, their existance moving more towards thought than physical requirements.

Or would that be the philosophical race staying on earth whilst the mechanists migrate ?

kula


Or will it be the rich running away from their mess they created only to go looking for another place they can "use up" as well somewhere in space?

3 species then ! Although i think some may have already begun mutating !

kula

Hi, I am doing a project at school where I have to debate that we shouldn't be focusing so much on space exploration! This is really hard, cause I don't feel this at all, and the only reason I can think of is it being really expensive! I was wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction with links, or anything at all!! Thanks!!
I think the main reason is we've messed up one planet and havnt the right to mess up another until we clean this one up, but really you shouldnt be asked to argue against something you think is right, thats rather poor teaching.

It's been my opinion mostly that space exploration is the fulfillment of a basic human need: cuiosity. I mean, suppose we discovered that in two days a meteor the size of the moon was going to annihilate most of life on Earth. What could we do about it? Not a friggin' thing! However, curiosity is so great a need of the human psyche I hardly think it's a useless endevoir. That'd be like saying entertainment movies are useless.

Of course space exploration is incredably important, its only expensive because of capitalism, and its dangerous because venturing into the unknown is always dangerous(and even venturing into the known is dangerous sometimes), if the world would actually realise how important it is and start producing space equipment cheaper or for free and let every nation be a part of one space project we mite be able to get off this rock and onto another in a few years.(i know it wont happen, moneys to important but its a nice thought)

space exploration is obviously a must. I mean, what if a huge comet slams into earth? today, we'd all be screwed, humanity would perish in a huge shockwave. If we had colonies on asteroids or planets, we might have a chance of starting over. think of it as insurance! put craploads of money into preparation for an event that might not ever happen, but if it did, you'd be glad you did. plus, i think it's best to learn as much as possible about the universe just out of intelectual enlightenment, but what the hell, blowing up stuff down here's fun too.

You could do a small amount of research on population growth, so you can use fancy terms, like r-selected and k-selected.

An r-selected species reproduces in large numbers, is generally low on the evolutionary scale, and uses up all available resources resulting in dramatic crash and growth cycles. Sometimes they ruin their habitat beyond the point of repair. r-selected are unlimited growth curves, with each successive generation exponentially bigger than the last. Bacteria or rabbits are good examples.

A k-selected species reproduces slowly, and generally has a growth cycle that tapers off near carrying capacity. Carrying capacity=the number of individuals an environment can support. Elephants are a good example of a k-selected species.

So, what does this have to do with space? Here's a sample arguement:

1. Space exploration is justified as "survival" in a collapsing world.
2. Population growth is the #1 reason for the collapse.
3. The future inhability of earth is our own fault.
4. The illusion of quick space colonization leads to a "buy a replacement" attitude rather than a "fix it" one.
5. Since little is known about the carrying capacity of our planet, and doubters of earths carrying capacity are marked "doomspeakers," we may deduce two more reasons:
a. More money needs to spent on learning more about our planet with out discouragement for negative reports
b. With the current administrations refusal to admit that global warming is caused by humans, their competency in constructing future ecosystems is highly doubtful.
6. Because we do not know earth's carrying capacity, we do not know when we have reached, or when a systemic collapse will occur.
7. Because studies of planetary ecology are not funded well enough (due to the $13billion for NASA), we will not know anything about earth's carrying capacity.
8. Not only does carrying capacity need to be studied, but solutions for preventing, postponing or working around a systemic crash need to be found.
9. When a systemic crash does occur, if we have not found solutions for mending the problem, then the USA will go, too. Or the US will lack the proper economy for the number of Americans to continue at their present, easy lifestyle.
10. In the event of an unprepared for systemic crash, non-essential programs, like NASA, will be cut. Or, NASA may no longer exist.

Therefore,
funding for NASA should be reduced and space exploration postponed until the terrestrial demo- and ecosphere are better stabilized, ie. fix broken nations, stop terrorism and the reasons for it, reduce or eliminate dependency on fossil fuels, find out what's in the oceans, save the treees, feed the children, et cetera.

Well, there's your argument in a pseudo-sorite.

so basically what your saying is lets fix all the problems on earth and make earth a perfect, happy place before we start expanding off the planet. I'm guessing you think that utopia is theoredically possible as well than? face it, we're not going to be able to fix this planet to the beautiful bliss you described simply because we are vain, stupid creatures that will never coordinate in such a way! now, maybe if we change our speicies genetically to have more common sence or something, this could work, but of course, as you say, funding probably wouldn't go into something THAT radical, and so we're eventually screwed either way. empires will fall, poverty will ALWAYS be in existence, and like any other machine, which is all this planet really is, Earth will eventually fall appart like it has in the past. as insurance, we should expand more as soon as possible, and maybe as technology develops, we will enhance ourselves to become a more responsible and reasonable race of being capable of running a 'nicer' global (or even interplanetary) society.

It's been my opinion mostly that space exploration is the fulfillment of a basic human need: cuiosity. I mean, suppose we discovered that in two days a meteor the size of the moon was going to annihilate most of life on Earth. What could we do about it? Not a friggin' thing! However, curiosity is so great a need of the human psyche I hardly think it's a useless endevoir. That'd be like saying entertainment movies are useless.


We could send a rocket to intercept the asteroid and with a nuclear weapon detonate it nearby the asteroid causing a shift in its trajectory thereby missing the Earth!

Weed_Eater, this thread is about why we should not continue space exploration, not construct straw men and put your faith in non-existant technology.
Where did I mention anything about utopia? You are grossly misconstruing what I proposed. It will take probably 500 years to make habitation on another planet even feasible, much less sustainable. That means that your fantasy world on Mars will require constant help from Earth. Constant, expensive, help.
Did you know that we cannot even construct a functioning, contained ecosystem on earth? How do you propose it be done in space?

As far as we know, earth could be collapse tomorrow. We could pour 1000000trillion dollars into NASA, and get nowhere, because of time constraints. Earth might not collapse tomorrow. It cannot be soundly and validly stated that either is true without further study. Thus, further study of our planet, followed by stabilizing problems, should be funded, not flying to other planets. Space is in its infancy- more immediate problems must be addressed before we undertake the grandiose.
For instance, if a lightbulb goes out in your house, typically a person will change the lightbulb, not buy a new house.