it’s funny how much of a marketing gimmick NASA was, people to this day still think astronauts drank Tang.
Do you feel the same about all exploration? Deep oceans, Marianas Trench, etc.? You know why we need to do it? Because it’s what humans do. Pacific Islanders once expanded their civilization across thousands of miles of open ocean–it required time, expertise, research, and the devotion of resources and people that were likely scarce. And yet they did it.
In just the same manner, humans are sitting ducks on this planet and I want to know that, despite wars or asteroids or the devil flu, that we can fling our dna back out into the stars, because we are explorers at heart.
The amount of money spent on space-oriented programs is a drop in the bucket relative to the amounts we spend on social programs, food aid to other countries, and infrastructure improvements. We can continue to make those discoveries in space as part of that same exploration, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll make other, bigger discoveries along the way. Are we alone in the universe? Are there any other planets that are habitable? Have you not seen images beamed down from Hubble, or data from Kepler? You seem to be utterly opposed to anything space, and virulently so, if I might mention it.
A functional and effective space program is a small part of the many things done by the US government (and other governments, for that matter), and I see no reason why we can’t continue to expand our understanding of the cosmos through that program.
Bull. FUCKING. Shit.
You know why we need to go to war? Because it’s what humans do.
You know why we need to oppress minorities? Because it’s what humans do.
You know why we need to trash the environment? Because it’s what humans do.
You know why we need to rob, cheat, and steal? Because it’s what humans do.
There are far, far, far more pressing concerns on this planet than cheering on the ultra rich while they play around with rockets. Space exploration is a luxury that can take a hike until we get a handle on basic things like feeding everyone, not hurting and killing each other, and not destroying the planet.
Chasing these absurd dreams of a glorious future for humanity in space was somewhat understandable, if still illogical and ultimately inexcusible, in the dark climate of nuclear brinskmanship, when the apocalypse seemed like it might arrive at any day and many people needed stupid political stunts to keep them from giving up on life and humanity altogether.
The space race didn’t give us the great technologies of today - war and the eternal military arms race did. Yet who here will champion the US spending even more money on our military industrial complex than the absurd amounts we already do? Where are all the starry-eyed visionaries romantically espousing the untold technological benefits just waiting for us to find them during the next big war?
Every reason people give me for our continuing to shoot off giant rockets I find completely uncompelling. “It’s inspirational!” doesn’t cut it. “It creates glorious new technology!” is demonstrably untrue. “It provides jobs!” fails to realize that we can provide jobs doing literally anything, and there are untold far more worthwhile endeavors we could embark upon purely for the sake of creating jobs.
Fix war, hunger, crime, the environment, the economy, education, and politics. Then we can talk about doing more things in space than sending the odd probe and maintaining our satellite networks.
3 Likes
These are called “contractors”.
Here, read this and be enlightened.
…and kept it from large-scale wars, confining inter-superpower conflicts to regional “proxy” ones. The big advantage of nukes is that they make the generals’ arses sweat.
And the Manhattan Project bootstrapped said teflon into mainstream use, as it was the virtually only consumer of fairly large amounts of this otherwise just-an-accidentally-invented curiosity, due to its resistance to uranium hexafluoride.
If the ultra-rich pay for the rockets, more rockets to them!
These goals are pretty much unreachable. Feed Africa and you get more Africans until they are hungry again. And then there is the issue of resources, which is where the ultra-rich get their money. Better extract the money into rockets, they are at least fun and inspiring to watch.
You mean, people don’t need something to keep them from giving up on life and humanity altogether? Did you read youtube comments?
The war and military race gave us the space race, which gave us the technologies - by proxy.
A lot of energy research, namely the laser inertial confinement fusion, is tied to defense. If you cannot test nukes by a blast, you have to test the materials/effects in a smaller scale. Energy-producing fusion lies along the same path, so it hitchhikes. More power for the National Ignition Facility.
Same for z-pinch. Viva Sandia.
And laser weapons, they share pedigree and offsprings with high-power industrial lasers.
Lots and lots of elementary research being done there. Some of it is even openly (paywalled but that’s a different grumble) published.
And so on and on and on.
Depending on where it goes. We don’t need the F-35 crap. We need bigger lasers in NIF; three cheers for those.
The nukes are what keeps the big wars in bays. Mutual assured destruction is a good coolant for bellicose political hotheads.
Start with something easier, e.g. a tailor-made wormhole. People will be people, too few generations since monkeys to change much.
The same argument, without the satellite networks, could be used against building the satellite networks.
I want off this stupid rock.
You can keep it if you like it so much.
3 Likes
Plenty of time for that one. But better get going, just for sure…
Cue transhumanism.
Your idea of maturity sounds awfully close to throwing in a towel.
2 Likes
1 Like
ach, just let China do it.
3 Likes
[quote=“PGoldie, post:5, topic:44785, full:true”]
The first US satellite was Explorer 1, in August 1958 and NASA was not created until 2 months later.[/quote]
Just FYI. Michael Franti is absolutely correct. The first picture of the Earth shot from space (though not from orbit, this was a sounding trajectory) was taken by a camera on board a captured V-2 rocket launched from White Sands New Mexico on October 24, 1946. Technically this was not taken by a satellite, let alone a NASA satellite, but those are minor details peripheral to the point of his argument. This was the first time humans ever saw the Earth from space.
2 Likes
You seem to be making 2 assumptions I can’t get behind.
First that tackling multiple such problems at once dilutes our ability as a civilization to tackle the others. Yes, as a species if we put our collective will into it we could solve war in half an hour, hunger in a few months, and crime (along with poverty) in a couple of years (barring crimes by the mentally ill). Education would take decades, environmental problems generations, the others who knows. But that is ideal-world speculation on my part. Out in reality, neither you nor I has a really good idea what it will take to fix those problems, time and other resource-wise. They may or may not even compete with space exploration for anything but money. And you know what? Human psychology being what it is, it is much much easier to get people (politicians included) to give a little money to each of a lot of causes than a lot to one cause. So shutting down space exploration probably would not result in any increase in funding to any of those other causes, it would get blown on the military or some such. Given that context, adding another cause to the list can make sense.
Second, you are operating under the same short time horizon as the rest of humanity. War and hunger we really to need to do everything in our power, at each moment, to end. But I don’t just want things to be good now, I want them to be good 10, 100, and 1,000 years from now, and in the latter case humans (or our descendants) may be very different physically and emotionally. Maybe, if we’re smart, we’ll modify ourselves to live for centuries, and with that to plan projects (government, private, whatever) that span much longer lifetimes. There is no law of physics that research has to return a profit in 5 years. Then an interplanetary civilization is eminently achievable, and interstellar will look like an extension of the same principle. The alternative, meekly accepting our eventual demise from one disaster or another, is unacceptable (to many humans). Maybe I’d feel different if the universe were teeming with other civilizations and keeping ourselves relatively confined meant promoting cosmic diversity, but we could only know that after a lot of exploring.
7 Likes
I think it is more the fact that, if we don’t get a self sustaining population in to space, nothing we do has any value; because our species will die. A rogue asteroid or killer flu bug will, one day, kill us all.
2 Likes
That is a good reason on a practical standpoint. But on the other hand we need a great unknown to push against. There has to be a “Here there be dragons” for someone to go “Is there? I wonder what it looks like?”
But whatever the reason, at least be both agree that exploration is a good thing. And that’s good.
2 Likes
The Moon Landings provided a massive boost to the conspiracy video market.
2 Likes
Yeah, I kinda figured you might go that route. Not interested in continuing this with you, but thanks for the reply.
2 Likes
I am always amazed at how angry people get at the notion of space travel and exploration. If you aren’t into it then don’t do it. It isn’t hard.
Personally, I get angry at the trillions spent on building and using weapons of war. I get angry at the entire notion of ‘business class’ flight as a tax deductible expense. I get angry at militarized police forces with tanks. I get really ticked at vast oil sands development.
I could care less if a few billionaires spend their cash floating around in a spaceship for a bit.
I am much more interested in the endeavours of Planetary Resources. A bona fide business endeavour with huge hurdles but a real chance of getting us out of this biosphere. Personally I hope they crash the local commodities market enough to make it viable/practicable to stop destroying our wilderness with strip mining etc.
I doubt we will be visiting other stars in our lifetimes, but I would love to see some steps towards it. We don’t need to send vast and wasteful colony ships - there are hundreds of other viable options if we accept that it will take a couple centuries to arrive anywhere.
5 Likes
Why? I see them as sponsors of my plebes-class travel. Airlines have to get the profit, and that way they can afford to get less profit on me.
Just because you lack imagination doesn’t make Mr. Franti’s appeal any less poignant. Old men that lacked vision have shook fingers and naysayed since the beginning of time, and yet ever the world continues turning and those they call stupid and crazy continue to prove them wrong.
3 Likes
Sure, business class is a profit centre, but it isn’t them subsidizing you or me. It is a tax deductible business expense, which means it is essentially us plebe taxpayers subsidizing the airlines indirectly by providing a degree of luxury to the privileged.
If businesses couldn’t deduct the cost, there would be no business class, since few individuals can reasonably afford to fly at that price. But because it is a ‘business expense’, it is a cheesy way to funnel more cash to the airlines. At our expense - the shortfall is made up somewhere else.
I have no issue with a legitimate business flight being expensed, only with the superfluous ‘privileged’ class part of it. Let them write off the cost of a plebe flight and pay for the rest themselves.
/drift.
1 Like
Think about it another way. Airlines don’t have to get so much in direct subsidies this way.
You may say the same about the no-consumption-tax surcharge on jet fuel. But I won’t - it would only make my travels (and my shipping) more expensive.
Why do airlines get anything in direct subsidies? And if so, why not subsidize the flights of everybody rather than just the privileged? What is so special about those people that leaves us in the ‘undeserving’ category? If they think they are special and need more legroom or whatever then they should pay for it.
I don’t care if somebody wants to fly in comfort, that’s not my problem. But I don’t want to pay for it, directly or indirectly. And I’m not a big fan of subsidizing airlines in any form really.
1 Like
I agree that Mr. Franti is absolutely correct, except for the errors of 1) not a satellite, 2) NASA did not exist, and 3) high altitude photos had already be taken with rockets and balloons. Who cares about minor details anyway, ever since John Glenn walked on the moon last year.
1 Like
