3 ms·

This kind of extremely narrow minded thinking was already addressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2006 : http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html http://www.ch

by eksith 13y ago

This kind of extremely narrow minded thinking was already addressed by Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2006 : http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html A notable quote : "We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money involved, in further airship experiments. Life is short, and he is capable of services to humanity incomparably greater than can be expected to result from trying to fly..." from Dec. 10, 1903

genwin 13y ago
Professor Langley didn't borrow $trillions and expect future generations to pay it back with interest.
- eksith 13y ago
  You don't pick and choose what breakthroughs in technology, science and medicine will result from the Space Program (as has already been demonstrated). Simply developing one solution leads to a plethora of others that will go on to benefit society in numerous unforeseen ways. NASA puts out a wonderful publication of the branches and side products, services and technologies that has come about as a result of the space program thus far (this is since the moon landing). Hint: It's more than just "Velcro". Space programs of Mars exploration caliber stimulates all, read that word again please, all branches of sciences. All branches of engineering. All branches of mathematics. All branches of biology and medicine. The benefit to society is nearly incalculable, but if you must put a dollar amount, it's well above a paltry $trillion (the actual cost will be in the billions, far less than the monthly consumption of the pointless war in Iraq). The tragedy that plagues all of our generations, it seems, is that great feats that suddenly leaps in progress in all areas of our lives have to fight through an insurmountable myopia. Similar to what happened soon after landing on the moon. Part of me hopes China colonizes Mars first. America is long overdue for a lesson in hubris. Maybe they'll appreciate the new breakthroughs in the above mentioned fields more than the American populace can.
  - genwin 13y ago
    I'm all for a Mars colony, if we're debt free and it's paid for with cash. We just can't afford the investment now. It really isn't a case of "can't afford to not do it". If China colonizes Mars, Americans will almost certainly reap the benefits you describe, at little cost. It wouldn't be a lesson in hubris so much as smart to step aside.
    - eksith 13y ago
      It actually is. The U.S. hasn't ever been "debt free" however arbitrarily that's determined. The late 60's - 70's wasn't a great time for the U.S. economically since the 50's boom was starting to wind down. What really triggered growth afterwards, setting the stage for the early 80's boom, was the space program. Specifically the myriad of branch industries, technologies and services it spawned both directly and indirectly. In plain words: Space builds jobs and we really can't afford not to do it. Once Russia lost the moon, they were already in sour shape. They had arguably better technology to do what they did (the N1, though ridiculed for being overly complex, was actually based on proven technology and in-house innovation), they were safer and more cautious. The U.S. "won" not just because the N1 failed, but the agency and the political sphere took grave risks (costing 3 astronauts their lives). But as Tyson himself says, there are only three main drivers for exploration: 1) The "I don't want to die" driver. Apollo falls under this since those damn Commies were involved. 2) The "I don't want to die poor" driver. The Columbus voyages fall under this 3) The praise of royalty and deities (don't see much of this except for the 700 Club and Scientology; are they building spaceships?) The first two are sort of contained in a race against China. If the U.S. "loses", it will suffer the same fate as Russia; irrelevance.
      - genwin 13y ago
        "Build jobs" isn't a good enough reason. Chairman Mao built lots of jobs by having people melt their pans to create new pans. The Great Chinese Famine came next, predictably. If the jobs create more benefit than not, you're right. But space programs don't do that, not today anyway. Nowadays they are closer to melting pans to create new pans than they are to mining ore to make new pans. Suppose we got our laptops today because of the Apollo program. Will we get 10X faster computers because of a Mars colony? Unlikely. And even if we could, it's more efficient to get that benefit from investment directly into computers rather than indirectly through a Mars colony. I don't buy the argument that we must have a super lofty goal to get the side benefits we really wanted. This is all academic anyway. The US really can't afford a Mars colony, as in people won't loan us the money at sufficiently low interest. The interest rates the US pays have been creeping up. Things may seem rosy at the moment but the house of cards is actually crumbling. The US now spends $220 billion annually on interest on debt, projected to reach $1 trillion in just 7 years. Even without added debt for Mars colonization the consequences of our borrowing will surely be severe within a decade. Paying down our debt is the best big investment we can make.

by eksith 13y ago

genwin 13y ago

Professor Langley didn't borrow $trillions and expect future generations to pay it back with interest.

eksith 13y ago
You don't pick and choose what breakthroughs in technology, science and medicine will result from the Space Program (as has already been demonstrated). Simply developing one solution leads to a plethora of others that will go on to benefit society in numerous unforeseen ways. NASA puts out a wonderful publication of the branches and side products, services and technologies that has come about as a result of the space program thus far (this is since the moon landing). Hint: It's more than just "Velcro". Space programs of Mars exploration caliber stimulates all, read that word again please, all branches of sciences. All branches of engineering. All branches of mathematics. All branches of biology and medicine. The benefit to society is nearly incalculable, but if you must put a dollar amount, it's well above a paltry $trillion (the actual cost will be in the billions, far less than the monthly consumption of the pointless war in Iraq). The tragedy that plagues all of our generations, it seems, is that great feats that suddenly leaps in progress in all areas of our lives have to fight through an insurmountable myopia. Similar to what happened soon after landing on the moon. Part of me hopes China colonizes Mars first. America is long overdue for a lesson in hubris. Maybe they'll appreciate the new breakthroughs in the above mentioned fields more than the American populace can.
- genwin 13y ago
  I'm all for a Mars colony, if we're debt free and it's paid for with cash. We just can't afford the investment now. It really isn't a case of "can't afford to not do it". If China colonizes Mars, Americans will almost certainly reap the benefits you describe, at little cost. It wouldn't be a lesson in hubris so much as smart to step aside.
  - eksith 13y ago
    It actually is. The U.S. hasn't ever been "debt free" however arbitrarily that's determined. The late 60's - 70's wasn't a great time for the U.S. economically since the 50's boom was starting to wind down. What really triggered growth afterwards, setting the stage for the early 80's boom, was the space program. Specifically the myriad of branch industries, technologies and services it spawned both directly and indirectly. In plain words: Space builds jobs and we really can't afford not to do it. Once Russia lost the moon, they were already in sour shape. They had arguably better technology to do what they did (the N1, though ridiculed for being overly complex, was actually based on proven technology and in-house innovation), they were safer and more cautious. The U.S. "won" not just because the N1 failed, but the agency and the political sphere took grave risks (costing 3 astronauts their lives). But as Tyson himself says, there are only three main drivers for exploration: 1) The "I don't want to die" driver. Apollo falls under this since those damn Commies were involved. 2) The "I don't want to die poor" driver. The Columbus voyages fall under this 3) The praise of royalty and deities (don't see much of this except for the 700 Club and Scientology; are they building spaceships?) The first two are sort of contained in a race against China. If the U.S. "loses", it will suffer the same fate as Russia; irrelevance.
    - genwin 13y ago
      "Build jobs" isn't a good enough reason. Chairman Mao built lots of jobs by having people melt their pans to create new pans. The Great Chinese Famine came next, predictably. If the jobs create more benefit than not, you're right. But space programs don't do that, not today anyway. Nowadays they are closer to melting pans to create new pans than they are to mining ore to make new pans. Suppose we got our laptops today because of the Apollo program. Will we get 10X faster computers because of a Mars colony? Unlikely. And even if we could, it's more efficient to get that benefit from investment directly into computers rather than indirectly through a Mars colony. I don't buy the argument that we must have a super lofty goal to get the side benefits we really wanted. This is all academic anyway. The US really can't afford a Mars colony, as in people won't loan us the money at sufficiently low interest. The interest rates the US pays have been creeping up. Things may seem rosy at the moment but the house of cards is actually crumbling. The US now spends $220 billion annually on interest on debt, projected to reach $1 trillion in just 7 years. Even without added debt for Mars colonization the consequences of our borrowing will surely be severe within a decade. Paying down our debt is the best big investment we can make.