Do we spend enough on space exploration?

[blike]

Do we spend enough on space exploration?

[Dave]

Blatently not. The removal of support for Hubble shows the way the space program is going.

[Severian]

Hubble was not space exploration.

[5614]

hubble, in this case would have counted as space exploration, i think that we do spend enough money on it, it's just we dont come up with much.

 

its like, billions of pounds are going into the industry, but where have we got with the past few years?

 

not very far

[Sayonara]

I voted "yes we spend too much", but only because I don't think it's being spent on the right things if you're asuming the budget should be for space exploration.

[badchad]

I think we spend way too much considering the cost VS. rewards. Have we learned anything immediately useful from space exploration? What was the cost of the mars rovers? Wasn't it around 600 million? And we discovered that water was once on mars. Admittedly, I don't know specific details of the mission, but it doesn't seem like we learned very much. Then there are always the 100 million dollar probes that malfunciton. Oops..there goes your tax money. IMO the money is better spent elsewhere.

[J'Dona]

I voted no, we do not spend enough. The immediate returns might not be apparent, but then they never really are; science is progressing at a rate faster than any previous time in human history, but when any new funding is put into a certain area you can't expect immediate results. By this I mean something like the Mars rovers, from which we discovered that there was water on Mars. That might not seem like much, but it could give significant insight regarding the possibility of evolution of life on other planets in the future, and for the cost of two bucks per American citizen. That's about half a pack of cigarettes.

 

Maybe I sound naive, but considering that apart from the Apollo missions the entire human race in the whole of history has been confined to the Earth and within a few hundred miles of its surface, I consider any advances into space exploration to be a step forward. Not just when those steps bring us global communications, weather satellites, evidence for new theories which shape cosmology and our very concept of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang and the discovery of the background microwave radiation), and so forth.

 

I'd like to say more but it's extremely late here (1:34 AM) so I've got to go...

[DreamLord]

I said no. We could do so much more with the space program if our government just gave them proper funding.

[ydoaPs]

as far as i am concerned, the only manned space exploration done was going to the earth's moon. the rest is going in a circle a few miles above the surface.

 

unmanned is different. i think we need more missions there as well.

[YT2095]

I voted no, we don`t, neither financialy or in the way of cooperation/sharing.

[pulkit]

I voted yes.

 

The immediate benefits of spending money on other things are much greater. Space exploration at present doesn't seem to hold any distinct advantage for the human race. (I say this as a comparison of the cost:usefulness ratio)

[AL]

We should encourage the private sector to get involved in space exploration. Big corporations throw hundreds of billions a year in marketing to have their logos plastered on billboards and baseball stadiums, and to sponsor concerts and other events. Why not stick a logo on a rover and have "Mars Rover Mission 2012, brought to you by Nike?" Nike is going to spend that money anyway, so it might as well go to help exploration and there wouldn't be any griping about "wasted" tax dollars. I don't get why our space program doesn't do this.

 

Are we still worried about NASA secrets being leaked to the Soviets? Cold War Space Race II: Sputnik's Revenge.

[YT2095]

Are we still worried about NASA secrets being leaked to the Soviets? Cold War Space Race II: Sputnik's Revenge.

I think in many ways the answer is still YES to that, maybe not so much the Russians, but certainly the Chinese (and they`re just as "bad" too).

 

I`de like to add to my prior post that I consider "space exploration" in a wider perspective, not to ONLY find new planets, stars, etc... but also the effects it has on medicines and plants and things we can`t do here on Earth, that to me is ALSO space exploration

[Sayonara]

People who vote no should say how much "enough" is, and justify it.

[YT2095]

People who vote no should say how much "enough" is, and justify it.

that sounds fair to me

 

Enough in my opinion would be that required to make space exploration (using MY deffinition of it) a Viable industry, whereby the rewards and advancements made, including products, start to pay for the initial cost of getting to that stage in the 1`st place. and then eventualy at a point whereby it`s paid for itself and begins to make a profit and actualy benefit mankind

 

as to an actual cash figure??? no idea?

[Sayonara]

I'm pretty sure we could do all that without spending more.

[YT2095]

I voted no, we don`t, neither financialy or in the way of cooperation/sharing.

I know it seems a bit sad to quote yourself LOL

but I regard the "cost" or expenditure to be more than just financial, I agree, we could probably do it NOW with the current global budget already being spent in cash terms, but until we`re willing to trust and coopreate with each other as a race (mankind), and pool our resorces, then the cost is too high, and we`re not spending enough

 

I`de hazzard to say that were my ideal to have been employed years ago, we could have had a working moon base by now!

[Sayonara]

I think the problem this poll has is that it implies "more spending -> more exploration".

[YT2095]

and the words "Spending" and "Exploration" are hard to pin down to specifics also when left so open.

 

I though it prudent to define my interpretation of them both (saves latter arguments).

[coquina]

No, we do not spend enough on space exploration, but it is a very complex issue. One thing to remember is money spent on space exploration generates "spin off" technology that can be used in many other applications.

 

Times have really changed since the early 60's when Kennedy threw out the challange to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade.

 

At the time, my father had a small machine shop that he worked in part time. His was employed by NASA Langley Research Center as an "instrument maker". Back then that implied mechanical instruments, not electronic ones.

 

When space exploration first started, Langley was the lead NASA agency for it. My dad learned that there was going to be a lot of machine shop work subcontracted, so he took early retirement and expanded his shop. Back then, small shops were working directly with NASA engineers to produce parts, which were initially tested in wind tunnels. When the drawings were approve for the "real thing", there would be a big red stamp on them that said "flight article".

 

I grew up in this shop, worked here as a child in the summers. My dad taught me the machine shop trade from the ground up. (I own and operate it now) I cannot tell you how exciting it was to be a part of the beginnings of space exploration. One of the earliest things I remember was when "Surveyor" landed on the moon and started sending back pictures - we were so excited because one of the pictures showed a component part of the foot that we had built. You can see the picture here, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html.

 

We also made parts for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Viking, LDEF, and many more projects. Eventually, rather than use small independant contractors, the projects were bid by the huge corporations. The bidding was quite competitive. During an interview one of the original astronauts was asked what concerned him most. He said "the realization that I am riding a rocket filled with high explosives that was built by the lowest bidder."

 

We continued to work for NASA in the experimental field, until the Challanger disaster changed everything. Prior to that event, the space budget was already being cut. I remember when the design first went out for the space shuttle. There was concern about booster design from the git-go. Several companies did not want to build the boosters in parts and connect them with O-Rings. Plastic is notorious for shrinking and growing dependant on temperature. The larger the sealing diameter compared to the diameter of the O-ring itself, the more it will change size. However, NASA had budget constraints, and one piece boosters would have had to have been transported to the Cape by barge, so they decided to go with multi-piece units. The same congress that cuts NASA's budget screams the loudest when disaster occurrs. Over and over again, NASA has been forced to take the cheap way out due to budget constraints.

 

Rather than be involved in so many projects, I would prefer to see NASA work on one major project at a time, with an adequate budget to get the job done right. Regardless, disasters will still occur from time to time. When they occur, certainly they should be investigated, but there shouldn't be rounds of finger-pointing and nit-picking.

 

I apologise for the length of the post. Will somebody please kick this soapbox out from under me so I can get back to work...?

[deltanova]

i voted that we are spending enough, i love the thought of perhaps once going to mars, i love that once i get into the swing of things educationaly i will be able to understand it to the best of my ability, but there are people who need it more, better spend it on the humans who will improve the economy to get more money to spend on the space station and can use it all, there are millions of children born each year, and how many of them will become the great leaders of their generation?

[J'Dona]

People who vote no should say how much "enough" is, and justify it.

I'd very much agree with YT2095's definition of enough. Personally - and I'm not an economically minded person so my ideas are probably just composed nonsense - I'd say "enough" would be the amount required to set up an international organisation with the funding and ability to always be working on the next big project.

 

Forty years ago a "big project" in that sense was getting someone on the moon; today it would be getting someone on Mars. After that (or at the same time) colonization of the Moon would be the next agenda, and then colonization of Mars, and then human exploration of the outer solar system, extrasolar exploration with unmanned solar sail probes or some such, and research into advanced propulsion with the eventual aim of making the colonization of space quicker and easier. That's true and proper exploration in the sense that I believe blike's original post implied, although on a completely different scale than current levels. It does cost a fortune, of course, and in the interest of economics (and politics) things would be a lot smoother if it was an international front from today onwards.

 

My justification would be the subsequent boosts to the aerospace industry, international cooperation, knowledge gained about cosmology and the origin of the universe, additional living space for humans and other Earth lifeforms, the preservation of life on Earth and the human race in case of a natural disaster which would wipe out Earth (small risk, but a backup population is handy...), scientific research which affects life in more ways than can be counted, and the wow factor. Mostly the last one, I'll admit.

 

Okay, almost only the last one...

[badchad]

Well, I'm no economist, so I don't have a very valid opinion on how much is "enough". IMO the major concepts of reaching mars, colonizing the moon etc. are "putting the cart before the horse".

 

Imagine if we had a relatively cheap way to get into space, and colonize the moon or mars. Even if we got there, the colonies would have to rely on earth. That is, even if we could get to mars or the moon, and establish colonies there, we would have to import all of our resources from earth. To me, this doesn't seem to be reasonable or efficient. There are other priorities that would benefit us on earth immiedietly, as well as space in the future.

 

For instance, what if we developed an extremely abundant, and renewable "fuel-source", which could generate endless amounts of power and electricity. Then, through advancements in engineering, we develop the ability to construct humungous greenhouses. Now we have greenhouses, and enough power to light them to create food. Through some sort of agricultural advancement, we could then increase crop yields along with developing technology to create water, etc. etc.

 

Thus, if all these things came to be, they would benefit us on earth (renewable energy resources, enough food to feed everyone). Then once this technology became better and more affordable it would allow the development of self sufficient space colonies, which would be far more useful then simply getting to mars for the sake of doing it, then turning around and coming back.

 

My point about funding is similar to what someone said earlier about how although space exploration doesn't yield much now, it may in the future. I think the opposite. The funding could go to projects with shorter term goals, which would benefit us quicker, which would allow easier space travel and exploration in the future.

[J'Dona]

I agree with that badchad. If people were to put funds labelled for space exploration into, say, space plane research, it would help open the door to cheap spaceflight, and therefore commercial ventures. After that capitalism would drive it forward, although it wouldn't be an international venture... but then it shouldn't be, given it would just be for transport and not the next "big project".

 

Likewise, if these funds were also poured into nuclear fusion research, which would aid spacecraft and colonies immensely, but also sort a few things out on Earth (see the Peak Oil thread that's active at the moment).

[coquina]

You might want to take a look at some of the technology that has been derived from NASA "spinoffs".

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html