Why we abandoned space exploration in favor of dwelling in dark ages?

[Billy T]

The number of innovations that came from the R&D involved in the space program are uncountable.
I am alive because of technology developed by the space program for manned missions.
Here's a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
The references at the bottom list more.

I agree. Government funding of R&D pays big benefits. That is ture but has no neceassry connection to manned space exploration. It is NOT a direct benfit of knowledge gained about space. It is technology development done right here on Earth! We could get more of the same by, for example, more government spending on how to store solar energy, either in its electric or thermal captured form. That would give huge benefits, as storage is currently the limitation on replacing coal with solar energy. We need a crash program to keep Earth habital for our grandchildren.

 

[cosmictraveler]

How does a hologram investigate anything? Why would it need to be human-like?
How does a mobile hologram move about any better than a rover? Or see any better?
Why not dispense with all the equipment required to project a useless human hologram, and use that mass budget for instruments?

The hologram would be that of a human on Earth projecting themselves onto the Martian surface to investigate what any human would if they were there themselves. The mobile device that would project the image of the human would roll along wherever the science team wanted to go. Just an idea for the future when sending any probes to another celestial body.

 

[billvon]

The hologram would be that of a human on Earth projecting themselves onto the Martian surface to investigate what any human would if they were there themselves. The mobile device that would project the image of the human would roll along wherever the science team wanted to go. Just an idea for the future when sending any probes to another celestial body.

The only use of a hologram is to project a 3D image for others to see. Who would see it?

 

[Billy T]

The hologram would be that of a human on Earth projecting themselves onto the Martian surface to investigate what any human would if they were there themselves. The mobile device that would project the image of the human would roll along wherever the science team wanted to go. Just an idea for the future when sending any probes to another celestial body.

You seem to have zero understanding of what a hologram is. It is set of tiny reflections distributions, usually in a thin film, that when viewed at various angles give the illusion of seeing a 3D object - very much like an opal, which is a quite regular set of tiny reflection distributions that gives the illusion the illusion of seeing different colors when viewed at different angles. Also much like a thin film of oil on water does. They all "work" by making interference patterns.

The ability of a hologram to do anything, move objects, even a tiny grain of sand for example, does not exceed that of a regular 2D photograph of a man.

 

[psikeyhackr]

During the 60s and 70s almost everything and everyone was inspired by space: science, technology, art, design, culture...
It was common thought that in the first years of 21st century we'd have at least one habitable colony in our Solar system (Mars). Well, at least I thought so in the 80s.
These decades had far more progressive thinking than we had it today. It was far more futuristic society than today.
In 1966, three years before man was on the Moon, NASA’s employed 400,000 people and used more than 4% of the US federal budget.These days NASA spends just 0.5% of the same budget.

Instead of space exploration, humanity started exploring how to end its existence in most gruesome, savage ways. Instead of colonies on other planets we have a rise of fanatism and stupidity just like in good old dark ages.
I know there's no simple answer to this question, but I'd still like to know what happened?

The real purpose of going to the Moon was to beat the Russians. Sputnik shocked the US.

But getting to the Moon showed how expensive getting into space was. Plus all of the electronics development that spun off from the Space Race and Arms Race with the Russians mad robot space exploration more appealing. But it makes robot weapons appealing too.

We should have drones prospecting the Moon instead of killing people on the other side of the planet, but there is no one to shoot at on the Moon. It would not make a good video game.

psik

 

[paddoboy]

The real purpose of going to the Moon was to beat the Russians. Sputnik shocked the US.

But getting to the Moon showed how expensive getting into space was. Plus all of the electronics development that spun off from the Space Race and Arms Race with the Russians mad robot space exploration more appealing. But it makes robot weapons appealing too.

We should have drones prospecting the Moon instead of killing people on the other side of the planet, but there is no one to shoot at on the Moon. It would not make a good video game.

psik

Whatever....
In time though, we will return to the Moon and we will have permanent bases on the Moon, we will go to Mars, and probably land a man on an asteroid as well as mining them, and we will even go further afield even to the stars, as time and fate allows.

 

[Waiter_2001]

NASA is run by a woman. I hate her!

 

[darksidZz]

Good topic, I foresee no real change in the world except chaos. Space travel will not be common until better propulsion methods are devised and better energy sources. 400 years maybe?

 

[brucep]

Mod Hat ― Vigilance and pedantry

I have received a complaint of "racism" that I cannot generally sustain under any pretense of -ism.

Here's the problem: I can construe a thin veneer of offense if I pedantically pick out a failure to capitalize a word in a commonly-used phrase that is the English-language identifier by which a group wishes to be known.

Or I can just read the phrase and know what the member means because there really isn't any question.

In either case, I apparently need to offer a note about pedantry; a good number of the complaints we receive are problematic for various reasons, including vicious hair-splitting.

To be fair, though, I also would need to offer a note about vigilance, that people should now expect to be held accountable for every typographical error, including failure to capitalize a word.

Or perhaps I might skip it entirely, because, really, this is a Mod Hat about what is, at worst, a typographical error that requires precise parsing in order to construct a thin complaint.

Thus I'll shut up, now, and leave it to the community to figure out how they wish to be held accountable for what they post, and that will actually help us resolve this subset of complaints, when they arise, quickly, efficiently, and consistently.

Thank you.

Really? When's that going to happen? IE self moderation. I say folks who continually profess intellectual dishonesty should face some censure. Eventually. Otherwise the community will eventually disappear.

 

[brucep]

During the 60s and 70s almost everything and everyone was inspired by space: science, technology, art, design, culture...
It was common thought that in the first years of 21st century we'd have at least one habitable colony in our Solar system (Mars). Well, at least I thought so in the 80s.
These decades had far more progressive thinking than we had it today. It was far more futuristic society than today.
In 1966, three years before man was on the Moon, NASA’s employed 400,000 people and used more than 4% of the US federal budget.These days NASA spends just 0.5% of the same budget.

Instead of space exploration, humanity started exploring how to end its existence in most gruesome, savage ways. Instead of colonies on other planets we have a rise of fanatism and stupidity just like in good old dark ages.
I know there's no simple answer to this question, but I'd still like to know what happened?

You summed it up nicely. I don't believe NASA had much to do with the lack of funding. The oligarchs don't want to spend anything on science. Much yes anything that has to do with the will of the citizens of America. We're letting them take over. We should be ashamed. I felt just like you. To bad we're wrong.

 

[brucep]

Incredibly ignorant.

Islam is a peaceful religion. Many violent criminals are Islam just like many violent criminals are Christian and atheist - and American and European.

Also, many Americans and Europeans are Islamist.

Rational people protect themselves from criminals, not from religions.

We should always look out for fundamentalist bullshit. Just as if they're criminals. For example the fundamentalist preaching to his congregation that homosexuals should be rounded up and put to death for their sins. Rachel Maddow showed a clip of his 'preaching' on her show a couple of days ago. Her expression after the clip was priceless. I mean fundamentalists not religious folk. Psychotic folk preaching to a brain dead congregation about some hateful set of principles. Kinda like Donald Trump without the pseudo religious connection or like Ted Cruz with the pseudo religious connection. Pretty sure religious leaders around the world would like to see those two take a long stroll on a short pier. This country is losing it's charm. I couldn't believe that our biggest allie is voting in parliament to censure Donald Trump for his insane comments about everybody and their brother. A so called candidate for the Presidency of the US not being welcome into the UK. The shits about to hit the fan. I hope he wins the libertarian, how do you spell republican, nomination so the party of the intellectually dishonest oligarchy implodes right before our greatful eyes. Buried under an avalanche of self serving ignorance. What freaks me out is the large contingent of Americans who don't seem to know, or care, which side the breads buttered on. If we can work this out maybe NASA can get better funding from public servants rather than from ideological sociopaths.

 

[brucep]

NASA is run by a woman. I hate her!

So you think the head of NASA is responsible for lack of funding? Say it isn't so. Or that she's responsible for the oligarch war on science and intellectualism? It isn't so. Or that she is just a women fucking up?

 

[brucep]

The real purpose of going to the Moon was to beat the Russians. Sputnik shocked the US.

But getting to the Moon showed how expensive getting into space was. Plus all of the electronics development that spun off from the Space Race and Arms Race with the Russians mad robot space exploration more appealing. But it makes robot weapons appealing too.

We should have drones prospecting the Moon instead of killing people on the other side of the planet, but there is no one to shoot at on the Moon. It would not make a good video game.

psik

The 'real' purpose in going to the moon was to go to the moon. The original consideration included wanting to beat the Russians getting there. What makes a project appealing isn't how much it costs. The science is the main reason. The types of projects we get to choose from are limited by the funding. We don't do science to impress the Russians and they don't do science to impress the US. The less politicizing science the better.

 

[Waiter_2001]

I agree. The process is more important than the answer. The process may provide an answer, but the process generates the ability to discover solutions to problems WITH the answer.

 

[sideshowbob]

The real purpose of going to the Moon was to beat the Russians. Sputnik shocked the US.

I suppose it could be argued that one of the (political) motivations for going to the moon was to convince the American public that America was ahead of the USSR in technology. Of course it wasn't. However, the "race" to the moon did enable America to catch up and in some ways surpass Soviet technology.

 

[pluto2]

I think that humanity is going back to stone age mentality.

I mean look at the world today. People are still very immoral and primitive.

The Internet is an example of how primitive humanity still is.

There is still a lot of false information on the Internet. Free speech is bad for the advancement of science because free speech means everyone can write whatever he/she wants, regardless if his ideas are true or not. False knowledge is bad for the advancement of science.

Our society is still very barbaric.

A good society is one when there is no money and where everyone can have what he wants and there are no homeless, sick and starving people.

A good society is also one where most of the major questions about the universe have been answered.

A good society is one where scientific knowledge is reliable and where bad ideas are rejected and replaced by better and more scientific ideas.

 

[Edont Knoff]

Instead of space exploration, humanity started exploring how to end its existence in most gruesome, savage ways.
[...]
I know there's no simple answer to this question, but I'd still like to know what happened?

I rather think, our focus changed from reality to virtuality - the option to build and explore virtual realities caught many peoples interest, and unlike space travel it became available to a lot of people. Just think about the time we spend with computer games or social media. Our interest turned from outwards to inwards, from very expensive to affordable.

Virtual realities (e.g. space ones like https://www.elitedangerous.com/) have the potential to be great experiences at very low risk. Many people like this combination. And the "experience" becomes better rapidly, which keeps people interested (Even more realistic and immersive! - many game ads scream just that). Plus, it became a money source for companies. Plus it is a potential way of mass manipulation, which is attractive to the ones in power. There are a lot of drivers towards virtual experiences.

As a mass phenomenon I don't think our focus shifted from space to war, but from reality to virtuality (with all the options for virtual battlefields and space exploration as well).

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that humanity is going back to stone age mentality.

'Going back to' from where? Was it ever better? Or is it just not progressing at the rate you expect?

Our society is still very barbaric.

Compared to what?

A good society is one when
there is no money and where everyone can have what he wants and there are no homeless, sick and starving people.
most of the major questions about the universe have been answered.
scientific knowledge is reliable and where bad ideas are rejected and replaced by better and more scientific ideas.

But this is fiction.

You're comparing real society to a fictional utopia.

 

[cosmictraveler]

While millions die everyday from diseases that could be controlled with proper medications. Should we that pompous that we spend taxpayers money on trips to Mars rather than medications that could save millions?

 

[Oystein]

While millions die everyday from diseases that could be controlled with proper medications. Should we that pompous that we spend taxpayers money on trips to Mars rather than medications that could save millions?

You're always ranting about science. You've ranted about the LHC and you've ranted about Mars trips before. Did you ever think that we can do both? No, you don't think much -- just rant all the time.