Do we spend enough on space exploration?

[ed84c]

CERN for example

[Nalos Surith]

Who cares just say its for space it doesnt have to be

[Nalos Surith]

...How is physisc not related to space o.O

[Ophiolite]

Nalos,

here is how it works. There is x amount of money available for scientific research. That's always at least half of what scientists think they need, but it is all there is.

 

At present the funding for that research comes from a variety of sources; private industry, foundations, international bodies, but the majority comes from government, i.e. from your pocket. But even in the case of the government it is administered by a variety of agencies, many of whom do not get on especially well with each other.

 

The result of this diversity of sources is a matching diversity of recipients. So although this sytem has many drawbacks and is certainly far from perfect it does ensure that a broad range of appropriate research projects are funded in a reasonably balanced way.

 

If all of the funding comes from a single source, with a single objective, that diversity will be lost. If a project does not relate directly to the advance in to space it is dead.

 

Your are quite right to suggest that a major space goal could revitalise the American economy and lead to all sorts of technical spin-offs, but not if all science research falls under one agency.

[CPL.Luke]

the real problem with space exploration now is that there is no pride in it

 

the fact is NASA needs some good pr

 

a trip to mars is just that (not just a nice slow trip type of thing but a major effort like for the apollo missions).

 

the space shuttles and space stations were nice and all but the fact is they don't exite people.

 

I voted no because of this. people don't want to see pictures of the mars they want to stand on it. its like fireing cameras out of a cannon to the top of mount everest. when you put them up peole would just notice them and walk on by. when you see a man standing 20000ft? in the air that is cool.

 

 

as for making space colonization feazible the key is to limit the number of space launches. Has anybody ever read some of ben bova's books about the colonization of space by space industrialists looking for profit? very good reads and they describe how to colonize space very nicely

 

a slight modification of the ideas in the books would be to build a big space station in high earth orbit. this way you don't have to burn as much fuel to keep it aloft. then you harvest the NEA's get the materials from those (capturing them in a lunar orbit might help) to build a number of reentry craft to carry refined materials back to earth. engines on these re-entry craft are superfluous as they just have to land with cargo (re using them would cost to much money). assuming you could get the original station in orbit the operation has the possibility to become profitable.

 

the main problem with the top scenario is the cost of building a launch facility and fuel etc. to lift the station into orbit, ounce it is in orbit and has aquired the proper ratio of asteroids and comets to harvest it could become self-sufficitent

 

the advantage to the above station is that one asteroid can fuel the world wide steel industry for a year. thus the costs of making several strip mines and making a space station all balance out (I would hope)

[Geode]

Not nearly enough. For some reason.

 

 

Geode

[Nalos Surith]

Nalos' date='

here is how it works. There is x amount of money available for scientific research. That's always at least half of what scientists think they need, but it is all there is.

 

At present the funding for that research comes from a variety of sources; private industry, foundations, international bodies, but the majority comes from government, i.e. from your pocket. But even in the case of the government it is administered by a variety of agencies, many of whom do not get on especially well with each other.

 

The result of this diversity of sources is a matching diversity of recipients. So although this sytem has many drawbacks and is certainly far from perfect it does ensure that a broad range of appropriate research projects are funded in a reasonably balanced way.

 

If all of the funding comes from a single source, with a single objective, that diversity will be lost. If a project does not relate directly to the advance in to space it is dead.

 

Your are quite right to suggest that a major space goal could revitalise the American economy and lead to all sorts of technical spin-offs, but not if [b']all [/b]science research falls under one agency.

 

I was just joking a bit with it all mate.

[Guest Myth Guy]

Enough, but some countries like mine are not advance enough to discover to outer space...

 

Some discovery tools are slow and easy to get spoiled...so some discovering project fail...

 

But I reckon its enought.