Should the exploration of outer space continue? Will we be able to live on another planet or the moon if 25 to 50 years from now?
I agree all the money they are spending could go towards feeding the starving people of this planet and getting our act together to save this planet.I'm against it. I don't understand why we're spending so much money on space exploration while we're killing our own planet for purely monetary reasons--i.e. rich oil companies. I know there's an idea that once we've destroyed Earth we can go live on the Moon, but frankly I think that's a lousy idea. I think we should turn our money and resources towards protecting what we have. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to understand for purely scientific reasons, just that there are more pressing priorities.
I'm against it. I don't understand why we're spending so much money on space exploration while we're killing our own planet for purely monetary reasons--i.e. rich oil companies. I know there's an idea that once we've destroyed Earth we can go live on the Moon, but frankly I think that's a lousy idea. I think we should turn our money and resources towards protecting what we have. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to understand for purely scientific reasons, just that there are more pressing priorities.
I agree all the money they are spending could go towards feeding the starving people of this planet and getting our act together to save this planet.
What does a single shuttle launch cost?
[written by Dwayne Allen Day]
About $400-500 million. This is just the cost of the 8 or so missions per year divided into the total cost of the program per year. Adding another mission to the ones already planned costs about $100 million or so. If you work in the development costs, then the cost of each shuttle mission can be as high as $1.5 billion
When we have Homeless people, People without jobs, and people without healthcare, spending billions of dollars in space exploration is rediculous. In my opinion that is.
I disagree JLS, I think Humans exploring is a bad idea. All humans will do to the Universe is destroy it. (Intentionally or not) Look what we have done to our own Planet. Look what we do to each other. I think it would be better if we stay on Earth and when its time for Earth to go... We go with it.
I couldn't disagree more. The cost of the average space mission is only a fraction of the cost of the average movie budget. Even some video game budgets have surpassed those of the average space mission. To have a problem with the money spent on exploration and not with the billions spent on frivolities like watching car chases and shooting monsters for entertainment I find a little inconsistent.
Taxes do not pay for movies, ticket sales do. People can choose to support the movie industry or not. However, my tax money, money I have worked for and sweated for and given up to the government with very little choice in the money pays for the space program. I don't get a choice.
Let's look at it another way, in terms of resources: How much energy does it take to get a rocket into space? Not just the thrust, I mean all the energy to build it and organize it and power the computers and the simulations and the lights in the building where all the little beurocrats and scientists work on it. How much of our planet do we destroy to create that energy? How much nuclear waste, or fossil fuels, or other pollution does it take to create that much energy? How can we possibly afford that?
You may respond that it takes more energy and causes more pollution to drive cars, or light houses. Again, I can (and do) choose not to drive. I can minimize energy I spend in my house. I can't, as an individual, opt out of the space program.
My point is I think Humans should worry more about what is happening wrong on our planet now, then whats out in Space.
Why does it have to be one or the other?For instance, if Scientists found a renewable fuel source do you think it would be available to everyone, or exploited by Capitalist corporations?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
The posters in this thread are committing the fallacy of a false dichotomy. People here are speaking as if the only two options are to 1) explore space or 2) solve our socioeconomic problems, and that these options are mutually exclusive. These are not the only options, and it is not the case that dismantling the space program will solve our socioeconomic problems. If someone can present an economic plan that solves our problems and requires dismantling the space program, I'll listen. If someone can present evidence that the space program is the cause of our socioeconomic problems I'll listen. If all you have is pure conjecture and personal opinion, well, you can't really expect anyone to listen, can you...:smirk:
Despite the animosity you apparently have for the "little scientists", they are the ones that will solve our energy problems.
...all the little beurocrats and scientists...
Ok. Miscommunication.I love scientists
A pandemic is a global emergency. An asteroid on a collision path with Earth is a global emergency. That some of our activities are damaging our ecosystem is not an emergency. It is a long term threat that needs dealing with or it may one day become an emergency. It is this type of unreasonable, alarmist attitude that causes people to believe that all that matters is protecting the environment. As if our destruction is immanent. It isn't. If we make the right changes in the right amount of time, we'll be fine.I think the biggest priority right now, the thing we need to spend the most time and money and focus on, is protecting this planet. This is not an idle whim, this is a global emergency, and if we have to sacrifice a few things until this emergency is solved, well, that's what we have to do.
... That some of our activities are damaging our ecosystem is not an emergency. It is a long term threat that needs dealing with or it may one day become an emergency. It is this type of unreasonable, alarmist attitude that causes people to believe that all that matters is protecting the environment. As if our destruction is immanent. It isn't. If we make the right changes in the right amount of time, we'll be fine.