I gotta admit that I more or less agree with Mr. stRange on that on a practical level. However, from a more romantic (not sexual romantic, but romantic world view) view, it's inevitable for mankind to be exploring the world(s) beyond.
Think about how much society and technology have changed since we were born; since we were young kids; since we were in high school; since we've been out of the cult... and even in the last couple of years...
I obviously don't care about whether any particular family makes it out of the "comfort" of mother earth into the wild black yonder of outer space to explore, colonize and cause the human species to survive and (hopefully) thrive elsewhere in our unimaginably vast universe.
It's just probably not feasible to expect public opinion to change to the degree necessary to halt such exploration.
The human race must move to a planet beyond our Solar System to protect the future of the species, physicist Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.
He told the BBC that life could be wiped out by a nuclear disaster or an asteroid hitting the planet.
But the Cambridge academic added: "Once we spread out into space and establish colonies, our future should be safe."
Prof Hawking, 64, was speaking before receiving the UK's top science award, the Royal Society's Copley Medal.
My next goal is to go into space; maybe Richard Branson will help me
Professor Stephen Hawking
He said there were no similar planets to Earth in our Solar System so humans would "have to go to another star".
Professor Hawking said that current chemical and nuclear rockets were not adequate for taking colonists into space as they would mean a journey of 50,000 years.
He also discounted using warp drive to travel at the speed of light for taking people to a new outpost.
Instead, he favoured "matter/anti-matter annihilation" as a means of propulsion.
A collision with fragments from space could end life on earth
He explained: "When matter and anti-matter meet up, they disappear in a burst of radiation. If this was beamed out of the back of a spaceship, it could drive it forward."
Travelling at just below the speed of light, it would mean a journey of about six years to reach a new star.
"It would take a lot of energy to accelerate to near the speed of light," he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
Professor Hawking became famous with the publication of his book A Brief History of Time in the late 1980s.
'Goal is space'
The physicist was not given many years to live when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in the 1960s, aged 22.
He said since then he had "learned not to look too far ahead, but to concentrate on the present".
"I am not afraid of death but in no hurry to die," he said.
"My next goal is to go into space; maybe Richard Branson will help me."
Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Group has contracted a firm to design and build a passenger spaceship.
Offshoot Virgin Galactic will own and operate at least five spaceships and two mother ships, and will charge £100,000 ($190,000) to carry passengers to an altitude of about 140km on a sub-orbital space flight.
Rocky -- thank you. :)
I was serious when I asked what his source of info was. Thanks for the link.
It amazes me how ignorant so many people are of the benefits of the space program. It has been an amazingly productive investment that has yielded many real-world, on-earth benefits that affect all our daily lives, in all sorts of areas.
Try Googling "space program benefits" (without the quotes) and read the first few links.
I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my ignoble ignorance, LG. I suppose in the fray of going to work and raising a family, I somehow missed focusing my attention on the benefits of the space program.
As for the rest of the article, referring to colonization of other planets, how many of you really think (if it were to happen in our lifetime) you would be the ones on the space ship? The infinitesimal part of me which is cynical, suspects it isn't going to be the average Joe (or, Josephine) hurtling toward another planet. That privilege will only be for the fabulously wealthy and/or connected.
No need for sarcasm, Sushi. I didn't insult you. As I said, many people are ignorant of the benefits of the space program. That says nothing more about them than that they lack knowledge of that one subject.
No need for sarcasm, Sushi. I didn't insult you. As I said, many people are ignorant of the benefits of the space program. That says nothing more about them than that they lack knowledge of that one subject.
Perhaps you didn't mean to, LG. But, I believe the responsibility for communication falls on the writer as opposed to the reader. Would you agree with that?
That being said, I'm sure you know the difference between the denotation/connotation of a word. True, the denotation of ignorant (according to the dictionary I have available to me):
lacking knowledge and education in general or in a specific subject
However, the connotation of ignorant tends to be slightly different than what you claim to have meant. If I said someone was ignorant and they kicked my butt (though, I wouldn't call what I did, a butt kicking ) for it, I really shouldn't be surprised.
No need for sarcasm, Sushi. I didn't insult you. As I said, many people are ignorant of the benefits of the space program. That says nothing more about them than that they lack knowledge of that one subject.
So then you assume that because we point out the ridiculous waste of money the space program is that we are "ignorant" of the benefits derived?
I'll give you the point that there have been benefits derived from the space program if you'll give me the point that all of those benefits (and I'll wager many more) could have been derived without all of the expense of rockets, astronauts and training...
And like Sushi points out... spending so much money to send so few into space... when the money and brainpower could be put to much more effective use for the "betterment" of mankind HERE ON EARTH makes no sense... no matter how great the "neato" factor...
As for the rest of the article, referring to colonization of other planets, how many of you really think (if it were to happen in our lifetime) you would be the ones on the space ship? The infinitesimal part of me which is cynical, suspects it isn't going to be the average Joe (or, Josephine) hurtling toward another planet. That privilege will only be for the fabulously wealthy and/or connected.
Oh, Goody! Think we can get the Baldwins, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore and the rest of their buddies to be the first ones to move there??
Tom, I missed your first reply to me. Sorry. I'll address it now.
It amazes me how ignorant so many people are in that they think these benefits couldn't have been come by without a space program...
Let me explain it to you LG... we take all those billions of dollars and thousands of scientists and we focus them on finding solutions to the things we need or can use here on earth (rather than in space)... guess what would happen... we'd have ALL those "benefits of the space program" that are cited and more AND we'd have tons of money left over...
...And calling it "amazingly productive" is absurd... if these benefits were all that came of all the man hours and dollars invested in a real world company... it would've gone down the tubes long ago... a company with a negative ROI isn't going to attract many investors...
I'm perfectly aware of the plethora of benefits that mankind and society has gotten from the space program, I'm just saying take out the expense of the rockets and astronauts and their training and you'd still have the benefits and, in reality, probably even more...
I never suggested that many of those benefits couldn't have been come by without a space program. Many could, but many also could not. Of those that could, though, there are no solid grounds to argue that most, let alone "ALL" of them, would. We can only speculate about that. The fact remains, though, that they did come about through the space program.
I don't really care to get into a pro-con space program argument. It's just not worth the effort to me right now. I was just addressing the question of benefits of the space program to the average person and the inherent suggestion that there were few.
Tom, I missed your first reply to me. Sorry. I'll address it now.
I don't really care to get into a pro-con space program argument. It's just not worth the effort to me right now. I was just addressing the question of benefits of the space program to the average person and the inherent suggestion that there were few.
OK then... when you're ready to argue it let me know!
Frankly, I think that sending people into space is done with a farther goal than just simply 'sending them into space'. I mean, look at the whole space program. What are its overall goals? Is it simply to send man into space? To the moon? To Mars? To any other destination for the simple purpose of simply sending them there?
Or are all these things done with an overall goal or goals in mind? ... How about to explore beyond this earth? Hell, we've been exploring this earth for the purposes of exploring for the past several thousand years or more. And there has definitely been benefits from all that, and not just from a technical or a gee-whiz standpoint. We humans are a curious bunch, wanting to see what's out there ever since we first climbed down from the trees.
So what of it if we take our exploration beyond the skies? And is it really going to make all the more people hungrier or more deprived of the basic necessities of life if we do? And if you don't want to participate, well then, who is stopping YOU from participating in the betterment of mankind here on earth, hmmm? :unsure:
Disclaimer here: Just wanted people to know that I have, and am a staunch supporter of the space program and exploration, and live in the Space Capital of the World (Huntsville, AL), and I have a personal interest in the space program. ... So there! :P
I'll bite... (as someone who was raised with the dollars from the defense industry and space program)
Exploring? there's plenty left to explore here on earth isn't there? ...start with the oceans...
If YOU want to explore in space, or anyone else does, let them... just don't use billions of tax dollars to do it...
Again, yes, there have been benefits from the space program... but if the government were to employ all of those brilliant minds focusing on problems and solutions to things here on earth we'd have many, many more benefits and lots of do-re-mi left over... why, we'd probably have figured out a way not to be so oil dependent by now, solved world hunger, and have peace on earth...
I laugh when I hear phrases like that, as it gives the impression that NASA is gobbling up a sizeable amount of the federal budget. Where in actuality, NASA only uses around 1-3 or 4% of our tax dollars. Heck, I think it's even less than that.
And when it comes to the wastefulness factor, NASA doesn't even come close. Hell, I could probably take a quarter of the cost overruns in the defense dept., and fund NASA for the next 20 years!
What I think needs to be done in NASA is make them more efficient, and more intelligent at the upper levels of management, tho.
OK... so it's not billions but "Go-Zillions"... and what does "the percentage of the federal budget" have to do with the price of tea in China???
Glad I could make you laugh today... but you're not really arguing your case are you?
As for the "defense industry" (shouldn't it be the offense industry?)... that's money spent for use here on earth with tangible purpose (world domination)...
I laugh when I hear phrases like that, as it gives the impression that NASA is gobbling up a sizeable amount of the federal budget. Where in actuality, NASA only uses around 1-3 or 4% of our tax dollars. Heck, I think it's even less than that.
Well, from NASA's own budget, it's not GO-zillions. It is in fact, (if I'm reading it correctly) 2.4 % of our national budget But, it still amounts to 16.5 BILLION dollars.
Don't know where you got the 2.4%, Sushi, but the $16.5 billion is less than 2% of discretionary spending and less than 1% of total spending. Still a significant amount and, although I think it's mostly money well spent, arguments to the contrary are not without merit.
Recommended Posts
likeaneagle
I uderstand we dont have the money to bring home the International Space Station, due to budget,Per;friend from Dept. of Interiors/Air and Space.
I wont be volunteering..
Im a bit looney already:)
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I gotta admit that I more or less agree with Mr. stRange on that on a practical level. However, from a more romantic (not sexual romantic, but romantic world view) view, it's inevitable for mankind to be exploring the world(s) beyond.
Think about how much society and technology have changed since we were born; since we were young kids; since we were in high school; since we've been out of the cult... and even in the last couple of years...
I obviously don't care about whether any particular family makes it out of the "comfort" of mother earth into the wild black yonder of outer space to explore, colonize and cause the human species to survive and (hopefully) thrive elsewhere in our unimaginably vast universe.
It's just probably not feasible to expect public opinion to change to the degree necessary to halt such exploration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Well if I was Stephen Hawkings I would most certainly smoke dope if I could.
I bet you would too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Rocky -- thank you. :)
I was serious when I asked what his source of info was. Thanks for the link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my ignoble ignorance, LG. I suppose in the fray of going to work and raising a family, I somehow missed focusing my attention on the benefits of the space program.
As for the rest of the article, referring to colonization of other planets, how many of you really think (if it were to happen in our lifetime) you would be the ones on the space ship? The infinitesimal part of me which is cynical, suspects it isn't going to be the average Joe (or, Josephine) hurtling toward another planet. That privilege will only be for the fabulously wealthy and/or connected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
No need for sarcasm, Sushi. I didn't insult you. As I said, many people are ignorant of the benefits of the space program. That says nothing more about them than that they lack knowledge of that one subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Perhaps you didn't mean to, LG. But, I believe the responsibility for communication falls on the writer as opposed to the reader. Would you agree with that?
That being said, I'm sure you know the difference between the denotation/connotation of a word. True, the denotation of ignorant (according to the dictionary I have available to me):
lacking knowledge and education in general or in a specific subject
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
However, the connotation of ignorant tends to be slightly different than what you claim to have meant. If I said someone was ignorant and they kicked my butt (though, I wouldn't call what I did, a butt kicking
) for it, I really shouldn't be surprised.
Your turn.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
So then you assume that because we point out the ridiculous waste of money the space program is that we are "ignorant" of the benefits derived?
I'll give you the point that there have been benefits derived from the space program if you'll give me the point that all of those benefits (and I'll wager many more) could have been derived without all of the expense of rockets, astronauts and training...
And like Sushi points out... spending so much money to send so few into space... when the money and brainpower could be put to much more effective use for the "betterment" of mankind HERE ON EARTH makes no sense... no matter how great the "neato" factor...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Perhaps, but Ralph Kramden would probably send you to the moon if you asked real nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oh, Goody! Think we can get the Baldwins, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore and the rest of their buddies to be the first ones to move there??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Tom, I missed your first reply to me. Sorry. I'll address it now.
I never suggested that many of those benefits couldn't have been come by without a space program. Many could, but many also could not. Of those that could, though, there are no solid grounds to argue that most, let alone "ALL" of them, would. We can only speculate about that. The fact remains, though, that they did come about through the space program.
I don't really care to get into a pro-con space program argument. It's just not worth the effort to me right now. I was just addressing the question of benefits of the space program to the average person and the inherent suggestion that there were few.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OK then... when you're ready to argue it let me know!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Frankly, I think that sending people into space is done with a farther goal than just simply 'sending them into space'. I mean, look at the whole space program. What are its overall goals? Is it simply to send man into space? To the moon? To Mars? To any other destination for the simple purpose of simply sending them there?
Or are all these things done with an overall goal or goals in mind? ... How about to explore beyond this earth? Hell, we've been exploring this earth for the purposes of exploring for the past several thousand years or more. And there has definitely been benefits from all that, and not just from a technical or a gee-whiz standpoint. We humans are a curious bunch, wanting to see what's out there ever since we first climbed down from the trees.
So what of it if we take our exploration beyond the skies? And is it really going to make all the more people hungrier or more deprived of the basic necessities of life if we do? And if you don't want to participate, well then, who is stopping YOU from participating in the betterment of mankind here on earth, hmmm? :unsure:
Disclaimer here: Just wanted people to know that I have, and am a staunch supporter of the space program and exploration, and live in the Space Capital of the World (Huntsville, AL), and I have a personal interest in the space program. ... So there! :P
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'll bite... (as someone who was raised with the dollars from the defense industry and space program)
Exploring? there's plenty left to explore here on earth isn't there? ...start with the oceans...
If YOU want to explore in space, or anyone else does, let them... just don't use billions of tax dollars to do it...
Again, yes, there have been benefits from the space program... but if the government were to employ all of those brilliant minds focusing on problems and solutions to things here on earth we'd have many, many more benefits and lots of do-re-mi left over... why, we'd probably have figured out a way not to be so oil dependent by now, solved world hunger, and have peace on earth...
well... maybe not the last one...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"billions of tax dollars"
I laugh when I hear phrases like that, as it gives the impression that NASA is gobbling up a sizeable amount of the federal budget. Where in actuality, NASA only uses around 1-3 or 4% of our tax dollars. Heck, I think it's even less than that.
And when it comes to the wastefulness factor, NASA doesn't even come close. Hell, I could probably take a quarter of the cost overruns in the defense dept., and fund NASA for the next 20 years!
What I think needs to be done in NASA is make them more efficient, and more intelligent at the upper levels of management, tho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OK... so it's not billions but "Go-Zillions"... and what does "the percentage of the federal budget" have to do with the price of tea in China???
Glad I could make you laugh today... but you're not really arguing your case are you?
As for the "defense industry" (shouldn't it be the offense industry?)... that's money spent for use here on earth with tangible purpose (world domination)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ohhh .... 'world domination' as a tangible benefit. ..... well, why didn't you SAY so? ;)
Anyway, I've explained my view of the tangible benefits to the space program. Perhaps you don't see them as tangible. Oh well. ...
One thing for sure, one soft drink company sure got quite a Tang-ible benefit out of the Apollo space program.
........... ((crickets chirping))
Gee, tough crowd! :unsure:
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
you've finally persuaded me garth! ...Tang makes it all worthwhile! I have come over to the dark side...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Well, from NASA's own budget, it's not GO-zillions. It is in fact, (if I'm reading it correctly) 2.4 % of our national budget But, it still amounts to 16.5 BILLION dollars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"It ... is ... your ... DESTINY!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Don't know where you got the 2.4%, Sushi, but the $16.5 billion is less than 2% of discretionary spending and less than 1% of total spending. Still a significant amount and, although I think it's mostly money well spent, arguments to the contrary are not without merit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
My apologies. Upon further investigation, I have reason to believe the 2.4% reflects the increase in their budget from the previous year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.