3 ms·

It may not be beyond our reach, but it is beyond my tolerance as to what I am willing to support as a taxpayer.

Amorymeltzer 11y ago
Why? NASA has paid HUGE dividends. >Estimates of the return on investment in the spaaace program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on spaaace development today. [1] That money is generally spent in the US, on good, high-paying jobs.[2] The products NASA has created are EVERYWHERE[3] — The general rule of thumb is if it's wireless, fireproof, or small, it's using technology based off NASA work. 1: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.ht... 2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-nasa_b_3561205.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-na... 3: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-space-exploration.aspx http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-s...
- yongjik 11y ago
  gp is not complaining about current state of NASA, but about a hypothetical adventure with high chance of failure that would burn enough money to send a dozen robotic probes to every planet in the solar system.
  - warfangle 11y ago
    > send a dozen robotic probes to every planet in the solar system. And not have any dividends at all in terms of sustainable environmental cycles....
    - yongjik 11y ago
      Why do you hate freedom, err, I mean, better robotics, batteries, and solar panel technology? :P
      - warfangle 11y ago
        Sure! But those don't have much to do with creating sustainable ecosystems (farming, direct atmospheric management, etc). They help, to be sure! But most of the innovations in robotics, batteries and solar panels aren't coming out of the space program these days, AFAIK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU
Joof 11y ago
Considering that people like Musk want to finance it commercially (yes, really), this point may be moot; however... The technology involved in going to mars will significantly advance (and cheapen) several areas that would otherwise be ignored. Currently we see SpaceX developing cost-saving technology such as landing rocket boosters and ramping up mass production. In order to live on mars we would need specialized farming equipment, chemistry equipment, robots, interstellar transportation and communication, knowledge on how to terraform at a massive scale and so on. It would be a boon to numerous commercial interests and likely pay for itself and then some.

Why? NASA has paid HUGE dividends. >Estimates of the return on investment in the spaaace program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on spaaace development today. [1] That money is generally spent in the US, on good, high-paying jobs.[2] The products NASA has created are EVERYWHERE[3] — The general rule of thumb is if it's wireless, fireproof, or small, it's using technology based off NASA work. 1: http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.ht... 2: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-nasa_b_3561205.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-lyons/misconceptions-na... 3: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-space-exploration.aspx http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-s...

yongjik 11y ago
gp is not complaining about current state of NASA, but about a hypothetical adventure with high chance of failure that would burn enough money to send a dozen robotic probes to every planet in the solar system.
- warfangle 11y ago
  > send a dozen robotic probes to every planet in the solar system. And not have any dividends at all in terms of sustainable environmental cycles....
  - yongjik 11y ago
    Why do you hate freedom, err, I mean, better robotics, batteries, and solar panel technology? :P
    - warfangle 11y ago
      Sure! But those don't have much to do with creating sustainable ecosystems (farming, direct atmospheric management, etc). They help, to be sure! But most of the innovations in robotics, batteries and solar panels aren't coming out of the space program these days, AFAIK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU

Joof 11y ago

Considering that people like Musk want to finance it commercially (yes, really), this point may be moot; however... The technology involved in going to mars will significantly advance (and cheapen) several areas that would otherwise be ignored. Currently we see SpaceX developing cost-saving technology such as landing rocket boosters and ramping up mass production. In order to live on mars we would need specialized farming equipment, chemistry equipment, robots, interstellar transportation and communication, knowledge on how to terraform at a massive scale and so on. It would be a boon to numerous commercial interests and likely pay for itself and then some.