4 ms·

I love NASA and science and all, but this seems like such an atrocious way to waste such a huge amount of money. We're literally destroying our own planet in ev

I love NASA and science and all, but this seems like such an atrocious way to waste such a huge amount of money. We're literally destroying our own planet in every way imaginable by the second, we're on the verge of a nuclear WWIII on top of that, and now we're looking to spend money exploring a cold and gassy planet that's 2 billion miles away? Is there really nothing closer or more worthwhile to spend that money on? Missions to Mars and the moon are ones we can at least dream of being useful before we wipe ourselves off our own planet, but Uranus...?!

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Turns out its trivial amounts of money compared to lots of things. And the old saw "Why do things in space when its not perfect down here!" is called "False Dichotomy". We can easily do both.
- dataflow 5y ago
  No, I don't see it as a false dichotomy. We "can" do both only because it takes time to see the biggest negative effects of everything we're already doing, and we're only getting glimpses of them right now, so we think we can still afford to waste more. With the amount of debt the US has, pretty much anything it spends money on is trivial at this point. The correct reaction to that is not to just ignore it and go even further negative.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    That money doesn't disappear from the economy. It pays for materials and jobs and work that gets done. The only financial value that is "lost" to the planet is the materials value of the probe itself and the contents thereof, which once you reduce them to raw mineral value is a mere few thousand dollars at worst. Space missions generate far more value than they cost, also. It takes brilliant minds solving unique problems as a group and once that is done, the information and knowledge generated do not simply sit in a vault somewhere but are then appropriated by other people for terranean uses, most famously like the microwave oven, but also all of the things this this list: https://www.philips.com/c-w/malegrooming/philips-space/space/10-space-innovations-that-are-closer-than-you-think.html https://www.philips.com/c-w/malegrooming/philips-space/space... And undoubtedly many more.
Jenk 5y ago
A more worthwhile argument is: Stop spending money on killing the planet and its inhabitants.
- dataflow 5y ago
  If you can do that without investing extra money I'm 100% rooting for you. (Actually I'm still rooting for you regardless even if you do it by spending extra money.)
  - Jenk 5y ago
    It wouldn't cost any money, it "just" needs governments, corporations, and countries to stop being dicks. Yup, this is a very facetious post. I'm making the point that we humans have a lot that we should stop spending on before we should stop funding science.
NineStarPoint 5y ago
It’s .004% of global gdp for a mission that will have its cost spread out over years, and has a much more likely chance to generate knowledge than research into less concrete topics. Even from a utilitarian point of view, there’s something to be said for pursuing things that help encourage humanity’s curiosity and interest in science.
dsq 5y ago
At first this seems logical: solve the existing probleme on Earth, and only then devote resources to 'nice to have' projects. The counter arguments are: The money saved would probably not go to solving real problems (who gets to decide what problems are real?), but rather various politically favored boondoggles or just politicians' salaries It's relatively small chnage compared to other budget items space is a major driver of technological advance which can then be used on Earth space has the potential for enormous economic growth (admittedly this is a long term thing)

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Turns out its trivial amounts of money compared to lots of things. And the old saw "Why do things in space when its not perfect down here!" is called "False Dichotomy". We can easily do both.

dataflow 5y ago
No, I don't see it as a false dichotomy. We "can" do both only because it takes time to see the biggest negative effects of everything we're already doing, and we're only getting glimpses of them right now, so we think we can still afford to waste more. With the amount of debt the US has, pretty much anything it spends money on is trivial at this point. The correct reaction to that is not to just ignore it and go even further negative.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  That money doesn't disappear from the economy. It pays for materials and jobs and work that gets done. The only financial value that is "lost" to the planet is the materials value of the probe itself and the contents thereof, which once you reduce them to raw mineral value is a mere few thousand dollars at worst. Space missions generate far more value than they cost, also. It takes brilliant minds solving unique problems as a group and once that is done, the information and knowledge generated do not simply sit in a vault somewhere but are then appropriated by other people for terranean uses, most famously like the microwave oven, but also all of the things this this list: https://www.philips.com/c-w/malegrooming/philips-space/space/10-space-innovations-that-are-closer-than-you-think.html https://www.philips.com/c-w/malegrooming/philips-space/space... And undoubtedly many more.

Jenk 5y ago

A more worthwhile argument is: Stop spending money on killing the planet and its inhabitants.

dataflow 5y ago
If you can do that without investing extra money I'm 100% rooting for you. (Actually I'm still rooting for you regardless even if you do it by spending extra money.)
- Jenk 5y ago
  It wouldn't cost any money, it "just" needs governments, corporations, and countries to stop being dicks. Yup, this is a very facetious post. I'm making the point that we humans have a lot that we should stop spending on before we should stop funding science.

NineStarPoint 5y ago

It’s .004% of global gdp for a mission that will have its cost spread out over years, and has a much more likely chance to generate knowledge than research into less concrete topics. Even from a utilitarian point of view, there’s something to be said for pursuing things that help encourage humanity’s curiosity and interest in science.

dsq 5y ago

At first this seems logical: solve the existing probleme on Earth, and only then devote resources to 'nice to have' projects. The counter arguments are: The money saved would probably not go to solving real problems (who gets to decide what problems are real?), but rather various politically favored boondoggles or just politicians' salaries It's relatively small chnage compared to other budget items space is a major driver of technological advance which can then be used on Earth space has the potential for enormous economic growth (admittedly this is a long term thing)