PdotMichael
Banned
world hunger + climate change
We could make a better world for alle people of the world but yeah manned rockets are funnier.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Manned space programs waste of money and resources?
- Thread starter AAequal
- Start date
- Status
world hunger + climate change
We could make a better world for alle people of the world but yeah manned rockets are funnier.
What a load of crap.
Here, here's the same bullshit tactic back at you: Space exploration is justifiable only to people who don't care about education and health care.
How come? Within our current political/economical situation we are spending x amount on NASA and x amount on defense. We could solve all the worlds problems if we would spend money correctly. That is not the case I'm talking. Within our current situation would people willingly ditch NASA missions so we could make a manned space mission to the moon?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
What you rather spend the money on trying to take peoples guns away.
Always-honest
Banned
Not a waste of money when there is plenty of money to go around.
I would love for it to be 1000 bigger. but there are more important things..
I would love for it to be 1000 bigger. but there are more important things..
mclaren777
Member
Yes, I firmly believe that manned space programs are a waste of money and resources.
If nothing else, manned space flight make us agree on things, that's one giant step for mankind if I ever seen one.
Within the current political system, we can't snap our fingers and change how NASA spends its money either.
If you want to know what people think in the abstract, why put those conditions?
For example, I think that manned space flights are super important and I think that NASA's budget is not nearly large enough.
If you want me to prioritize all of NASA's missions against manned flight while accounting for cost, sorry, I'm not nearly informed enough on their budget's details to make that call.
There is no justification for the amount of money we are spending on the military. You clearly laid out in this thread that the price tag of the mission was a big reason why we shouldn't do it.
Political situations can change if the people demand it.
No we couldn't. Money doesn't solve problems, people do.
More Fun To Compute
Member
We do a lot of expensive things just to make ourselves feel good about ourselves and putting mammals in tin cans and shooting them out of the planet's atmosphere is one of them. But I think that most people got bored of it and would rather watch mammals run around stadiums doing things with balls.
Why not send up the tin can by itself and let people be inspired by other things.
Why not send up the tin can by itself and let people be inspired by other things.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Wait, is that true? We spend:
700-800 Billion a year on defense
but
100 Billion gets us a manned mission to the moon?
So 1/8th of the annual defense budget for just one year can get us up there again? What the hell? Sorry OP, I know you're not looking for budget reallocations, but goddamn. Why don't we send somebody to the moon? Who the hell knows what we might find this time? Maybe mixing up chocolate milk in low gravity cures cancer; our dumb asses wouldn't know because we haven't been there in 50 years. We need to cut back on an aircraft carrier or two and have a moon base. Who knows what we might have invented by now.
My only source for those numbers is this thread, but if they're true, what the hell, let's go back to the moon.
[EDIT: Originally said 7-8b/1b, not 700-800/100. Typo fixed.]
700-800 Billion a year on defense
but
100 Billion gets us a manned mission to the moon?
So 1/8th of the annual defense budget for just one year can get us up there again? What the hell? Sorry OP, I know you're not looking for budget reallocations, but goddamn. Why don't we send somebody to the moon? Who the hell knows what we might find this time? Maybe mixing up chocolate milk in low gravity cures cancer; our dumb asses wouldn't know because we haven't been there in 50 years. We need to cut back on an aircraft carrier or two and have a moon base. Who knows what we might have invented by now.
My only source for those numbers is this thread, but if they're true, what the hell, let's go back to the moon.
[EDIT: Originally said 7-8b/1b, not 700-800/100. Typo fixed.]
Space and the furthering of mankind and the known science should be our only goal. Perhaps I'm just too much of a trekkie at heart.
I'm with you but Trek isn't reality
We don't have world peace and we still cling to money and long as those problems are with us we won't be expanding to other planets nor galaxies.I based on my thread on current situation. I tought it would be clear without mentioning it but clearly it wasn't and thread has already gone to shitters. Why would I be against manned missions if we had hundreds of billions to use on them?
PdotMichael
Banned
It's inevitable. You can put all the money in unmanned exploration, but in the end you still have to invest into manned space programs, because our final goal is to find new places to live. Our history has always been about exploring new frontiers.
A colony on Mars or Moon won't be economically reasonable for a long time, but how can we ever make a self-suficient colony if we don't even try it? I see manned space program as a very long term investment. We aren't talking about years, not even decades, but centuries!
A colony on Mars or Moon won't be economically reasonable for a long time, but how can we ever make a self-suficient colony if we don't even try it? I see manned space program as a very long term investment. We aren't talking about years, not even decades, but centuries!
Space exploration is quite valuable.
Manned space exploration is likely to be cost-prohibative for any place that's a non-trivial distance away. Human beings aren't built to survive the unimaginable distances needed to really explore anything. Perhaps technology will improve to make such travel more viable, but right now that money is better spent on sending machines to places where they can perform years of nonstop work in a way that humans cannot.
Manned space exploration is likely to be cost-prohibative for any place that's a non-trivial distance away. Human beings aren't built to survive the unimaginable distances needed to really explore anything. Perhaps technology will improve to make such travel more viable, but right now that money is better spent on sending machines to places where they can perform years of nonstop work in a way that humans cannot.
As Neil Degrasse Tyson said in one of his talks, the manned program produces heroes. You don't dream about being the guy that uses a joystick to move a robot, you dream about being Neil Armstrong. It has a multiplier effect on youth to follow a science career. Call it an investment in the future. Personally I approve of a manned space program.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Pardon me, I meant 700 to 800 Billion on defense and 100 Billion on the Moon mission. Point remains.
Astronauts + Scientists first. Criminals wouldn't be bad either, the Brits sent them to Australia, so why not send them to Mars?
The moon mission would automatically mean ditching other NASA missions. We would gain new technology for sure bu it would also mean no probes to nearby planets to collect data about them, no JWST, no dark matter projects etc.
Many people at NASA are even against JWST since it's eating up so much resources and many projects have been cancelled or delayed because of it. JWST has planned budget of 8.7 billion dollars.
Yeah, this is pretty appalling. What the fuck.
Only if we follow the dumb restriction of not increasing funding. The people for more manned spaceflight are obviously for a larger budget.
If the politicians weren't so corrupt, and if the public cared more about science, you could have both. There isn't a need to ditch other missions.
Waste of money to send them there. They wouldn't be able to fix any problems that would arise, so it's either a very fancy and costly death sentence, or you'd need scientists, engineers AND guards.
PdotMichael
Banned
ISS - more than 150 billions
So a manned moon mission will never cost 100 billions. And for what? To say hello? Robots are a lot cheaper and are better for research missions you can stay on the moon for years.
I wasn't serious. You wouldn't need guards though, it isn't like they can fly back to earth or something. Just send them to a lonely place and let them try to survive.
Neuromancer
Member
Counter point: without manned space flight we wouldn't have Tang or freeze dried ice cream.
NASA currently spends 1.3 billion dollars on earth science. In a few years, the budget will be greater for earth science than it is for planetary science. Clearly, that's a role that can be picked up by other parts of our government (NOAA, USDA, EPA, DOI, DOE).
NASA's main focus should be looking outward, not back onto earth.
NASA's main focus should be looking outward, not back onto earth.
ConfusingJazz
Member
To do it. No one cares about robots.
True. Then again we have front-runner nominee who is publicly telling that education is for snobs so I don't see things changing upcoming decades.
This is something I totally agree with. Planetary science took big hit due the problems with JWST and I really don't understand why the cuts weren't made in earth science. Force ESA to do more earth science.
PdotMichael
Banned
like manned space programs. And someone believe that we would send people to the mars without a long preperation with robots?
Duane Cunningham
Member
Nope, robots aren't good enough. I want people living on the moon, doing moon stuff, discovering new things that you can only find out on the moon and inventing stuff that helps you live on the moon which, it turns out, is also pretty rad on Earth.
And okay, 150 instead of 100, go ahead and yank a few more Lockheed missiles out of the DoD budget, we'll be fine.
Our defense spending is massive but it does employ a lot of people in this country with fairly well-paid jobs, and the research done does result in some benefits to society, much like the space program. Of course, I would like to see more money given specifically to science and technology but I don't think it's fair to point the finger entirely at defense spending for the lack of science funding. We spend a hell of a lot more money in this country on social programs than we do defense.
so.... republicans?
The thing is, the culture simply doesn't see space exploration as valuable. So even though it's half a penny on the dollar, they still think it's too much, because they don't think it's important.
Etrian Oddity
Member
I find it arrogant and pretentious to try to "conquer the stars" when the Earth still remains around 70% unexplored by us. Invest that money into finding breakthroughs that make hydroelectric and solar energy a viable source, please. One epiphany and a revolutionary fuel cell design later and we can kiss fossil fuels goodbye. I love science and am fascinated by space as much as the next guy, but we need to prioritize.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Low earth orbit bullcrap like what we've been doing the past couple decades? Possibly.
Missions to colonize the moon, mars, and to send humans to the other planets and beyond? No.
Our future is out there.
Missions to colonize the moon, mars, and to send humans to the other planets and beyond? No.
Our future is out there.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Lets just give everyone a link card and make a whole world dependent on our taxes. No thanks, Id rather fund exploration, push human limits.
That's implying the two ideas are unrelated though. Rocket scientists also want to create revolutionary fuel cell design and alternative means of power; because it's important to travel through space with as much energy conserved as possible. That includes solar powered means, such as solar sails; and alternative means of energy that are still inexplicably untested because there is no money to do it.
If you've been listening to Tyson, but can't see why he wants a manned space program, you haven't been listening close enough. He spells it out simply. Here's a link to help you out if you still don't understand.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-27-2012/neil-degrasse-tyson
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-27-2012/neil-degrasse-tyson
Succinctly put.
Duane Cunningham
Member
I think a great place for a scientist to find such a breakthrough is the moon. Maybe a solar panel on the atmosphere-less moon soaks up the sun at four-billionty percent, and we can send batteries back and forth that will power every damn thing down here. How would we know?
Not sure if serious...
Dragoon En Regalia
Member
In the current budgetary and political situation the USA is in, NASA is going to get very little done, at least compared to what they used to do decades earlier. Mitigating the military-industrial complex and transferring private firm compliance to space R&D would be a far better course of action right now (especially considering how much the long term benefits of space exploration, preperation, and colonization would benefit the majority of Earth's individuals), we do have some things to sort out right now. Conservatism and this fake belief that we can fight a war on terror in the Internet are two of the big things holding the space program(s) down, and it doesn't help that the Millennials are in the process of being turned into the Caretakers of the Baby Boomers as American politics and indecision are grinding this nation to a halt.
So, yes, manned space programs probably wouldn't even be poisslbe under NASA's measly budget. A shame toopeople find the exploits of space-faring astronauts more relatable, dynamic, and interesting than watching engineers and programmers manipulate probes from afar. The American people arguably would love to see a well-funded, promising manned space initiative in the near-futurebut we'll never get there if the nation cannot solve its potentially-terminal socio-political disease.
So, yes, manned space programs probably wouldn't even be poisslbe under NASA's measly budget. A shame toopeople find the exploits of space-faring astronauts more relatable, dynamic, and interesting than watching engineers and programmers manipulate probes from afar. The American people arguably would love to see a well-funded, promising manned space initiative in the near-futurebut we'll never get there if the nation cannot solve its potentially-terminal socio-political disease.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Okay, then read my semi-whimsical post specifically about solar panels as "X breakthrough discovery that makes more sense".
How in the name of hell could you possibly know that when the last time we went to the moon was 1972?
- Status