Space Exploration: Yay or Nay.

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

technology will catch up with our goals before our current tech can meet the goals...if that makes sense.

So if we send an interstellar generational ship to, say, Proxima Centauri, it is likely that our technology will reach a level where we can, in another couple hundred years, send a vehicle that might make it to the destination before the first vehicle arrives.

That said, I think we should do both. The interplanetary generational ship, even after its obsoletion, might survive as the sole remnant of humanity in the event that our species goes extinct before we can send faster, more advanced ships.

We should send multiple generational ships in multiple directions from our solar system. We hang from a very thin thread of life on this planet and any number of scenarios could end us before we even make it out of this system.

 

[Frosty]

Also remember that in the case of Americans, we're still somewhat reeling from the exorbitant cost of the space shuttle program, so people tend to think that spacefaring is prohibitively expensive due to that, when the fact is that the shuttle was not cost efficient and ended up being way too expensive due to how tricky it was to get into orbit. We use rockets now that cost mere fractions of what a space shuttle flight would cost.

Right, and as mentioned I believe by a few other people on this thread, smaller projects might not cost anywhere near as much. But smaller ones might just pick at what we would like to know, they might be less likely to really discover what a more expensive project might. That the world is paying for these smaller projects might slip past peoples noses, but offer up something large-something billions of dollars large- and there might be more likely to be controversy-logical or no. But I think that big is almost what we need-what would probably do the most for discovery. Anything ground breaking would probably necessitate trial and error, liability, money that...

Even if we agree space is where we should go, the direct route might not be the best one:
You could easily argue that investing in our future in space is better done with a much bigger portion of it without going to actual space.

For instance, the billions of dollars it would take for a one time back and forth human mission to mars would be better off invested in robotics, seed factory methodologies and 3d printing that could enable us to create self sufficient ecology of robotic asteroid mining resource refining and construction, enabling us to construct as many sampling rovers around mars as we want, or construct an entire fleet of interplanetary vehicles perfect for the earth-to-mars journey to be waiting for us pre-fueled in orbit.


.

'

At the end of the day might be better off using strategically elsewhere. But who knows what would end up being important and what wouldn't. Though pilfering money into a more secure and indirect laundry of potential cost-tume-efficiency saving tools, you never know what might be your end result. Maybe you spend money on developing something new and more efficient for your ship, and figure out that the system that you previously had in play would have ended up working better-resources lost. But yeah, I actually do sort of agree with Jarlaxle, more of this sort of behind the scenes activity-though I would guess that there already is a good amount going into this-would probably at the end of the day be a good investment. Maybe less smaller rockets, and more time spent developing something with a potentially broader scope.

 

[Poki]

the fact this thread is only 7 pages long vs the booty thread which is 18 pages says a lot about (some members of) this forum

They have to come to the Internet for some booty

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

They have to come to the Internet for some booty

Shiver me timbers, I want me some pirate booty.

 

[Ozzy]

We need some more of dat booty in space.

 

[Mane]

the fact this thread is only 7 pages long vs the booty thread which is 18 pages says a lot about (some members of) this forum

That's such a sad narrow minded short term view.

At least in this thread we are thinking of the long term, envisioning a better future for all mankind where prolonged habitation in lower G could produce fantastic breast appreciation threads.

 

[ygolo]

Space travel is one of the markers of the progress and capability of a society or species.

Leaving the cave, domesticating plants and animals, automating our work, transatlantic communication, flight, extension of life after a heart attack, a universal computing machine, etc. have all been "pipe dreams" in the past with "little practical value" (for those with severely limited imaginations).

"Limited resources" is a weak argument against the very technologies that unlimit our resources in particular ways. Space travel is one of those technologies.

 

[Frosty]

Space travel is one of the markers of the progress and capability of a society or species.

Leaving the cave, domesticating plants and animals, automating our work, transatlantic communication, flight, extension of life after a heart attack, a universal computing machine, etc. have all been "pipe dreams" in the past with "little practical value" (for those with severely limited imaginations).

"Limited resources" is a weak argument against the very technologies that unlimit our resources in particular ways. Space travel is one of those technologies.

I agree, but it is one of the very few arguments I could think up against it. A small investment for an eventual huge reward.

 

[93JC]

Also remember that in the case of Americans, we're still somewhat reeling from the exorbitant cost of the space shuttle program, so people tend to think that spacefaring is prohibitively expensive due to that, when the fact is that the shuttle was not cost efficient and ended up being way too expensive due to how tricky it was to get into orbit. We use rockets now that cost mere fractions of what a space shuttle flight would cost.

What many people also don't realize is the true cost of the space shuttle program relative to other government spending. Over 30 years, the entire life of the program, the U.S. government spent about $200 billion on it.

Over the same timeframe the U.S. Department of Defense spent about $15 trillion dollars. The army alone gets more funding in a single fiscal year than NASA spent on the space shuttle over the course of three decades. Almost three times as much money has been spent on the F-35 fighter jet program, and the plane hasn't even entered active service yet.

 

[Mane]

What many people also don't realize is the true cost of the space shuttle program relative to other government spending. Over 30 years, the entire life of the program, the U.S. government spent about $200 billion on it.

Over the same timeframe the U.S. Department of Defense spent about $15 trillion dollars. The army alone gets more funding in a single fiscal year than NASA spent on the space shuttle over the course of three decades. Almost three times as much money has been spent on the F-35 fighter jet program, and the plane hasn't even entered active service yet.

These scales call for a tree map infograph:

^
The whole of NASA is the tiny square at the bottom right.

 

[sprinkles]

What many people also don't realize is the true cost of the space shuttle program relative to other government spending. Over 30 years, the entire life of the program, the U.S. government spent about $200 billion on it.

Over the same timeframe the U.S. Department of Defense spent about $15 trillion dollars. The army alone gets more funding in a single fiscal year than NASA spent on the space shuttle over the course of three decades. Almost three times as much money has been spent on the F-35 fighter jet program, and the plane hasn't even entered active service yet.

Yes and not long ago I saw that NASA was working on a rocket that could maybe pull a manned trip to Mars for $500 million. That's peanuts compared to a shuttle launch, given the fact the shuttle cost at least that much for a launch if not actually more and hardly makes it out of the atmosphere.

 

[Tellenbach]

Every government program is just an excuse to waste tax payer money and redistribute wealth. I'm all for space exploration as long as it's privatized. NASA (and every other government bureaucracy) can't be trusted to spend money wisely.