Opposition to space exploration

So was flight 100+ years ago, so was space flight 60 years ago. Progression dictates that the evolution of science, according to the accelaration we have seen in the past century, will more than double that in the next.

Scientists have already successfully translocated an object across a lab; in the realms of science fiction?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

New science was not needed to learn how to create aircraft or spacecraft. fly in the air or send vehicles into space. Aerospace engineering is basically applied Newtonian physics. BTW, 60 years ago was four years after the end of WWII. Goddard and von Braun had already proven that rockets were anything but science fiction.

There is no reason to think that with any technology we can even remotely think of that we will be able to send 900 people per second out into space. Even the worst over-hype on a space elevator (science fiction) claims two million kilograms per year. If that two million kilograms was in the form of human beings, sans food, clothing, belongings, housing, or life support, that comes to one person every 18.4 seconds. We are not going to send a naked person into space every 18.4 seconds. There are far more efficient means to commit mass murder. Even if we did do that, it would not make a dent in the human population. We need to learn how to solve the problem of overpopulation on our own, and soon.

No, they haven't. Teleportation is safely ensconced within the realm of science fiction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

space travel is more important than nuclear weapons and we are yet to catch up to how much they spent on nuclear weapons so stop your complaining !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say it was a practical thing to do. Mars couldn't sustain them anyway. Think of it as more of a goal: if we wish to have a larger population (or even sustain the current population size) then the extra people can't be here. Unless they all live very frugal lives.
Even if the Earth CAN sustain a larger human population it will be at the cost of the rest of the Earth's biodiversity and natural beauty (although really we have wiped out most of the biodiversity already anyway).

 

A few years back National Geographic published a special addition showing all these great pictures of the universe. This special addition could only be found on newsstands so I went down to the corner store to pick-up a copy. When I tried to pay for the magazine the man behind the counter flipped out on me. "How can you support such a gross waste of money ... space exploration hadn't done anything to feed or cloth a single person ... children are dying right here and you're concerned about far away objects ... how many diseases have spacemen cured ..." On and on he went. This put me back on my heels. I had always assumed that understanding our place in the cosmos would lead to a better understanding of ourselves but this little foreign man got me thinking. What has manned space flight contributed to life on Earth? Sure it spurred advancements in computer technology and helped to increase our manifacturing precision. It gave a hole generation a new perspective on what can be accomplished if only we had the determination to do it. Up until this point I had taken for granted this inspiring act of exploration but if progress is our ultimate goal then ending our space program would be a step backward. Obviously it is not the United States responsibility to put an end to the worlds' problems yet if we use .01 percent of our national budget to do things that no human had ever done before, the world flips out. As a nation we spend more on Christmas presents for our dogs than we do to expand the limits of possibility. Even though my support for space exploration is unwavering it took the rant of a foreigner to make me realize the limits on the return in our investment. True, it won't solve the world hunger problem but neither will ending such programs. What seems like a small step for man right now can turn into a giant leap for mankind in the future. Only time and our determination will tell.

 

I presume your shopkeeper knows to close up shop when weather satellites see a hurricane approaching.

Those weather satellites are one example of where space exploration has had a very measurable and very direct ROI. NASA spinoffs include medical devices; NASA has helped save lives. Other than a few cranks, most economic analyses of NASA's spinoffs find a significant net positive return on investment. That's very nice, but it is not the main reason to go into space. After all, directed investments to achieve those ends would most certainly have had a better ROI. The main reason to perform space exploration is because exploration is an end in an end in itself. As Fraggle mentioned in this post, "Our species needs a frontier. It's of enormous psychological importance to humans, with our powerful instinct for exploration."

BTW, NASA's budget is a half to six tenths of one percent of the federal budget.

 

Space exploration must not stop.

 

Why not?

 

because it is the only way to answer the demands of our civilization. Our human race must expand and conquer and rule this universe.

 

the problem is that i cannot visualize getting very far. literally that is the problem: distance. anyplace suitable for humans are obviously to far to reach and i dont know how that boundary can be overcome.

 

just like in Middle Ages, Columbus imagined the land beyond the oceans...a boundary that cannot be overcome...yet here we are in America now, discovered by Columbus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do not fear the unknown.

 

There will always be starving people in the world. Putting off space exploration until we acheive a utopia on earth means putting it off forever.

 

When the Walther Von Braun's of the world are not working on geeky space gadgets, they work on weapons of terror.

THere is already a welfare system for the useless weight of society. Please don't take away the welfare system for the gifted and hard working, adventurous people.

 

Those are strange generalities. most people who have been on welfare, the welfare we first think of when we hear that word, have been children. The hardworking people you refer to are hardly all adventurous and they are just a small subset of gifted hardworking people out there. Including people working on better energy resources, peace, better distribution of food, etc.