objective of NASA space programme: to create jobs only?

[xxx200]

NASA mission to planet mars creats a budget of $2.5 billion . its only return to american people is creation of 7000 jobs in 31 states. but is job creation the only objective of NASA space programme?

 

what other benefits are there in the recent mars exploration? why america doesn't spend $2.5 billion to save life on planet earth instead of finding life on planet mars?

 

besides there is a deficit of $1.327 trillion in US budget 2012 . is it good for america to spend $2.5 billion for nothing?

 

some people may argue that mars exploration creates job but those job will be gone once the curiosity returns to earth. this is not a long term benefit at all. what other benefit a country like america will get whose budget runs on huge deficit?

[EquisDeXD]

NASA mission to planet mars creats a budget of $2.5 billion . its only return to american people is creation of 7000 jobs in 31 states. but is job creation the only objective of NASA space programme?

 

what other benefits are there in the recent mars exploration? why america doesn't spend $2.5 billion to save life on planet earth instead of finding life on planet mars?

 

besides there is a deficit of $1.327 trillion in US budget 2012 . is it good for america to spend $2.5 billion for nothing?

 

some people may argue that mars exploration creates job but those job will be gone once the curiosity returns to earth. this is not a long term benefit at all. what other benefit a country like america will get whose budget runs on huge deficit?

 

Every department and company is trying to keep as many jobs as they can, but that doesn't mean everything they do is fraudulent in any way, if they can be accused of such, they are just taking their sweet time. There's also politics, saying things like "saving life on Earth" is often associated with hippies because some hippies did advocate much peace and environmental awareness, which are then associated with drugs because many hippies smoked drugs as they did not view it as being wrong, so somehow for some reason traditionalists which still make up a large chunk of the voting block make the reasoning "all those things are automatically said by hippies, and are therefore all completely wrong because they smoked weed" or something like that, but with a mission to Mars, it's "We're expanding America's influence and then secondly trying to ensure humanity's survival in the cosmos.

Edited October 9, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[swansont]

Nothing? That's a pretty short view of the scientific advances you get from solving difficult problems.

[xxx200]

Every department and company is trying to keep as many jobs as they can, but that doesn't mean everything they do is fraudulent in any way, if they can be accused of such, they are just taking their sweet time. There's also politics, saying things like "saving life on Earth" is often associated with hippies because some hippies did advocate much peace and environmental awareness, which are then associated with drugs because many hippies smoked drugs as they did not view it as being wrong, so somehow for some reason traditionalists which still make up a large chunk of the voting block make the reasoning "all those things are automatically said by hippies, and are therefore all completely wrong because they smoked weed" or something like that, but with a mission to Mars, it's "We're expanding America's influence and then secondly trying to ensure humanity's survival in the cosmos.

 

just show what we get apart from jobs from mars exploration project. be specific and straightforward.

[John Cuthber]

If you think that's bad, look at the military spending.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

you don't need to spend more money on "defence" than the total of all the next dozen or so countries put together. They are not all going to "gang up" on you.

So it's clearly not spent on defence.

 

It seems to me that it's comparable with what the USSR did: anyone who didn't have a job was put in the army.

Well, obviously there's a bit of difference- they are driven by market forces and a lack of a welfare state rather than conscription and not all of them are directly employed by the military- plenty of them get jobs in the industries that service the military.

But, as far as I can tell, the idea is basically the same.

 

If 2.5 Billion is too much to spend on job creation then you really need to make a fuss about the 700 billion that is spent on the military.

[Ophiolite]

The General Point: America manages, just, to remain a leader in science and technology. The standard of living enjoyed by many Americans hinges upon that science and technology. Space exploration is an important part of maintaining that lead.

 

The More Focused Point: NASA has seven relevant goals to this discussion - "Seven Science Goals outline the following key domains of investigation: understanding the nature and distribution of habitable environments in the universe, exploring for habitable environments and life in our own Solar System, understanding the emergence of life, determining how early life on Earth interacted and evolved with its changing environment, understanding the evolutionary mechanisms and environmental limits of life, determining the principles that will shape life in the future, and recognizing signatures of life on other worlds and on early Earth."

 

The Specifics of the Curiosity Program: This will search for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life.

 

If you are unable to see the long term importance of this work, it may be that the fault lies with you and not NASA.

[xxx200]

If you think that's bad, look at the military spending.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

you don't need to spend more money on "defence" than the total of all the next dozen or so countries put together. They are not all going to "gang up" on you.

So it's clearly not spent on defence.

 

It seems to me that it's comparable with what the USSR did: anyone who didn't have a job was put in the army.

Well, obviously there's a bit of difference- they are driven by market forces and a lack of a welfare state rather than conscription and not all of them are directly employed by the military- plenty of them get jobs in the industries that service the military.

But, as far as I can tell, the idea is basically the same.

 

If 2.5 Billion is too much to spend on job creation then you really need to make a fuss about the 700 billion that is spent on the military.

 

 

look man don't make me laugh. defence is one of the most important field of any country. spending in that field has MANY returns. but what return NASA mars exploration has on human race?

 

 

The Specifics of the Curiosity Program: This will search for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life.

 

If you are unable to see the long term importance of this work, it may be that the fault lies with you and not NASA.

 

why searching for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life? what is the use of such info in our present situation?

 

the life sustaining environ is a past thing in mars. it is not present there anymore. then why digging the past? why looking for water in the mars? there is plenty of water here on earth.

[Moontanman]

NASA mission to planet mars creats a budget of $2.5 billion . its only return to american people is creation of 7000 jobs in 31 states. but is job creation the only objective of NASA space programme?

 

what other benefits are there in the recent mars exploration? why america doesn't spend $2.5 billion to save life on planet earth instead of finding life on planet mars?

 

besides there is a deficit of $1.327 trillion in US budget 2012 . is it good for america to spend $2.5 billion for nothing?

 

some people may argue that mars exploration creates job but those job will be gone once the curiosity returns to earth. this is not a long term benefit at all. what other benefit a country like america will get whose budget runs on huge deficit?

 

 

Your stance on this is particularly... annoying to me and I am sure to a great many others.

 

You make the assertion that NASA is spending money on nothing and that money would be put to better use on saving the planet when in fact the money spent by NASA is an investment in technology. The technology produced by the space program has done a great deal to help save the Earth. From satellites that monitor the earth from space to research into the effects of man's activities to studies comparing the Earth to other planets a how man's activities mimic the effects seen there NASA does far more to save the Earth that people who sit around looking for things to criticize.

 

On top of that is the fact that the budget of NASA over time is a tiny fraction of the budget of the USA, in fact at the height of the Iraq war more money was being spent in a day killing people and destroying than NASA spent in a year (actually I think it was more than NASA spent in several years)

 

Deleting the budget of NASA would do little or nothing to solve the deficit crisis of the US but the effects of NASA throughout the economy in not just jobs but new technology is well worth the tiny amount that NASA spends...

[EquisDeXD]

just show what we get apart from jobs from mars exploration project. be specific and straightforward.

 

We get scientific advancement, we can investigate technology to mine resources off world or build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large, figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently, figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better, figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation, a bunch of things, and even much of the US modern-day projectile weapons and some communications were created by NASA and organizations like it during the cold war. There's also just exploring the universe and seeing just what's actually out there.

Edited October 10, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[xxx200]

We get scientific advancement, we can investigate technology to mine resources off world or build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large, figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently, figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better, figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation, a bunch of things, and even much of the US modern-day projectile weapons and some communications were created by NASA and organizations like it during the cold war. There's also just exploring the universe and seeing just what's actually out there.

 

 

let me show you how all these things can be achieved without sending spacecrafft to mars;

 

we can investigate technology to mine resources off world

 

mine technology can be developped here on earth.

 

 

build colonies off-world for when Earth's population becomes too large,

 

do you mean that when people of earth live on land, water and sky in a large quantity? well that is too distant a future to worry about now.

 

figuring out how to use fuel more efficiently

 

this can be done on earth too. in a less costly way. this is done by fuel technologists, autumobile companies and airplane companies here on EARTH.

 

 

figuring out how to make vehicles maneuver through air better

 

this is the objective of many airplane makers. this can also be done by making airplane and testing them on the sky of EARTH. you don't need to go to outer space for that. there is a science called aeronautics that deals with how to make vehicle move through air.

 

figuring out how to make something more endurable to shock and temperature change and radiation,

 

 

all FMCG goods companies are doing it HERE ON EARTH in their lab.

 

 

so you see : you don't have to go to mars to achieve the ends you mention.

 

exactly what are the returns that we can get from mars exploration which is not available otherwise?

 

Your stance on this is particularly... annoying to me and I am sure to a great many others.

 

You make the assertion that NASA is spending money on nothing and that money would be put to better use on saving the planet when in fact the money spent by NASA is an investment in technology. The technology produced by the space program has done a great deal to help save the Earth. From satellites that monitor the earth from space to research into the effects of man's activities to studies comparing the Earth to other planets a how man's activities mimic the effects seen there NASA does far more to save the Earth that people who sit around looking for things to criticize.

 

On top of that is the fact that the budget of NASA over time is a tiny fraction of the budget of the USA, in fact at the height of the Iraq war more money was being spent in a day killing people and destroying than NASA spent in a year (actually I think it was more than NASA spent in several years)

 

Deleting the budget of NASA would do little or nothing to solve the deficit crisis of the US but the effects of NASA throughout the economy in not just jobs but new technology is well worth the tiny amount that NASA spends...

 

 

sir i don't want to hear how NASA's technology helped people in the past. my topic is how NASA's current mission to mars is helping people now? please be specific and straightforward.

 

thanks.

Edited October 10, 2012 by xxx200

[John Cuthber]

look man don't make me laugh. defence is one of the most important field of any country. spending in that field has MANY returns. but what return NASA mars exploration has on human race?

 

 

Defence has one legitimate goal and nobody has invaded the US lately. But I wasn't questioning the fact of defence expenditure, but the level.

Nobody has invaded China lately either, and they spend much less.

 

On the other hand there is the war on drugs that is essentially lost, the war on terror that isn't working and the war in Afghanistan that looks like a stalemate.

What do you gain from military spending apart from job creation?

YOu can't use the spin-offs as an argument in favour because space research has lots of them and you don't accept those as a vald reason.

[moth]

What is the point of making a leyden jar just to store sparks?

Why make a steam engine when a team of horses can do the same work?

Who would need a steel sword it's easier to use copper or bronze?

Why collect dirt and make pottery?

Why do you throw those seeds there?

Why leave the cave? I'd rather just sleep.

[xxx200]

Defence has one legitimate goal and nobody has invaded the US lately. But I wasn't questioning the fact of defence expenditure, but the level.

Nobody has invaded China lately either, and they spend much less.

 

On the other hand there is the war on drugs that is essentially lost, the war on terror that isn't working and the war in Afghanistan that looks like a stalemate.

What do you gain from military spending apart from job creation?

YOu can't use the spin-offs as an argument in favour because space research has lots of them and you don't accept those as a vald reason.

 

 

who said the war on terror that isn't working? do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? if yes then let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. they will continue war against america in their way. besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. these enemies will attack america in their own way. besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america.

 

so defence is more necessary than space research.

 

Why make a steam engine when a team of horses can do the same work?

 

because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry.

 

Who would need a steel sword it's easier to use copper or bronze?

 

steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war.

 

Why collect dirt and make pottery?

 

pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things.

 

Why do you throw those seeds there?

 

seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose.

 

Why leave the cave? I'd rather just sleep.

 

house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave.

 

 

why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

[John Cuthber]

"do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? "

No. I don't. I think the whole concept is absurd because, when it's over there's nobody to sign the armistice.

 

"let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. "

Well, for a start, I'm not sure that's true but it's certainly true that many Muslims don't.

Why not?

Do you think it might be anything to do with the US's foreign policy over the years?

 

"besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. "

Well, most of America probably doesn't actually criticise the prophet because most of then know damn all about him.

But, let's pretend its true.

And the corollary of that is that if they stopped pointlessly criticising someone who has been dead for a long time then they would stop pointlessly creating enemies.

If they did that then they could possibly save some of the $700Bn they keep wasting.

On the other hand, what would they do with all the people who were suddenly out of jobs?

 

"these enemies will attack america in their own way."

And the poor souls who died on 9/11 are testament to the total failure of the US military to stop these enemies- so why keep paying for them?

Wouldn'yt it be vastly cheaper to just stop pissing them off in the first place?

 

" besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. "

China doesn't like anyone's influence much.

But the influence from the US is not primarily military is it?

It's not like the US has been trying to invade China.

So a cut in the army budget wouldn't make any difference would it?

 

"there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america."

Quite possibly, but unless you are living in a dream world where a whole lot of countries (not least, much of NATO) all decide to join forces and attack the US then the budget is clearly disproportionate.

 

I'm not saying the expenditure should be zero.

I'm saying the current level is so high that it doesn't make sense as a purely defensive system so there must be another reason.

[moth]

because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry.

 

 

 

steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war.

 

 

 

pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things.

 

 

 

seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose.

 

 

 

house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave.

 

 

why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

 

 

This is all clear now, but mostly because you are looking back and seeing all the benefits that came from these innovations. It's not so easy to say where new ideas will lead when you are looking forward.

 

Some humans have a need to expand our knowledge and push against the boundaries of ignorance. They live at the frontier rather than exist in a cave.

 

Discovering life on another planet would improve our understanding of life. Pushing the frontier off Earth could improve the future of humanity by seperating our fate from the fortunes of one planet.

[EquisDeXD]

let me show you how all these things can be achieved without sending spacecrafft to mars;

 

 

 

mine technology can be developped here on earth.

 

 

 

 

do you mean that when people of earth live on land, water and sky in a large quantity? well that is too distant a future to worry about now.

 

 

 

this can be done on earth too. in a less costly way. this is done by fuel technologists, autumobile companies and airplane companies here on EARTH.

 

 

 

 

this is the objective of many airplane makers. this can also be done by making airplane and testing them on the sky of EARTH. you don't need to go to outer space for that. there is a science called aeronautics that deals with how to make vehicle move through air.

 

 

 

 

all FMCG goods companies are doing it HERE ON EARTH in their lab.

 

 

so you see : you don't have to go to mars to achieve the ends you mention.

 

exactly what are the returns that we can get from mars exploration which is not available otherwise?

 

 

 

 

sir i don't want to hear how NASA's technology helped people in the past. my topic is how NASA's current mission to mars is helping people now? please be specific and straightforward.

 

thanks.

 

How can we possibly test survival off world without doing something off-world? NASA is planning on sending actual people to Mars in less than 50 years, they need to know if we can find enough water and usable resources on Mars as well as testing equipment in it's environment in order to know if people can actually survive on it. They want to do this for the moon too since the moon has helium 3 which is a more efficient fuel in nuclear reactors, which we never would have found out without paying NASA or someone to go discover it.

Edited October 10, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[xxx200]

This is all clear now, but mostly because you are looking back and seeing all the benefits that came from these innovations.

 

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation.

 

Some humans have a need to expand our knowledge and push against the boundaries of ignorance. They live at the frontier rather than exist in a cave.

 

expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all.

 

Discovering life on another planet would improve our understanding of life. Pushing the frontier off Earth could improve the future of humanity by seperating our fate from the fortunes of one planet.

 

 

 

it may not be so. it is just a remote possibility. there is no concreate certainity. seed, steam engine, steel sword have a certain usage or need in human society which was visualized at the time of their creation. in this case there is no such certainity that in future stuff from mars will have any use.

 

 

what have we done with moonstone and moondust which appollo brought from moon?

 

bring moonstone and moondust and forget the moon

 

bring mars stone or marsdust and .............................

[moth]

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation.

Not always, some people were violently opposed to steam:

 

In 1792 Manchester weavers destroyed two-dozen Cartwright steam looms owned by George Grimshaw. Sporadic attacks on machines (wide knitting frames, gig mills, shearing frames, and steam-powered looms and spinning jennies) continued, especially from 1799 to 1802 and through the period of economic distress after 1808.

Steel took time to develop, with some false starts and dead-ends, and was not inexpensive of resources or time. Fortunately

our ancestors were willing to invest in making a better future instead of demanding results at the time.

 

expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all.

As has already been pointed out: $2.6 billion is a lot of cash, but not so much when compared to everyday items like toilet paper ($3.7 Bil.), or candy (more than $29 Bil.)

 

 

it may not be so. it is just a remote possibility. there is no concreate certainity. seed, steam engine, steel sword have a certain usage or need in human society which was visualized at the time of their creation. in this case there is no such certainity that in future stuff from mars will have any use.

So you admit the possibility that we may learn something useful?

 

what have we done with moonstone and moondust which appollo brought from moon?

 

bring moonstone and moondust and forget the moon

 

bring mars stone or marsdust and .............................

 

The Moonstones are not the whole story, there are other benefits from the moon missions.

Edited October 11, 2012 by moth

[John Cuthber]

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation.

 

 

expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all.

 

 

 

what have we done with moonstone and moondust which appollo brought from moon?

 

bring moonstone and moondust and forget the moon

 

The first line is very wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aeolipile_illustration.JPG

the second line is also very wrong. Secondary and tertiary education are expensive and also the cost of R and D is high.

It's high whoever does it but there are some aspects where only a government can sensibly take the risk. There is not usually an obvious return on the investment (according to the evidence, rather than your assertion) and so not many companies can afford to invest.

 

Well, I have gone to the rouble of touching a moon rock.

[Ophiolite]

why searching for evidence of the former presence of water and of past environments that may have been capable of sustaining life? what is the use of such info in our present situation?

Many of the problems currently confronting humanity are a direct consequence of short term thinking. If you were a parent you would be aware that young children are immersed in the here and now. They look for instant gratification and fail to explore the consequences of their action or inaction. Good parents help their children to recognise that they need to think beyond the immediate. Learning this is central to maturation.

 

As a species we are still learning that lesson, that we need to look beyond today and the needs of today and anticipate, as far as possible, the demands of tomorrow. Fortunately, many governments - such as that of the USA - acting through agencies, such as NASA, are looking ahead and seeking to answer questions of long term value. Asking those questions does not preclude dealing with current problems.

 

the life sustaining environ is a past thing in mars. it is not present there anymore. then why digging the past? why looking for water in the mars? there is plenty of water here on earth.

Understanding the origin of life has been identified as an important goal for humanity. Do you think it is irrelevant? Exploring life's possible existence - and extinction - on Mars can provide improved insight and novel perspective on the balance of life and important feedback mechanisms on Earth. This can go to the heart of finding solutions for the currently emperilled biosphere.

[xxx200]

all i want from members of science forum to give me one benefit that can be achieved only by sending somebody to another planet and not otherwise. the forum members show me benefits of so called space programme which could otherwise be achieved here on earth without the space programme. they cannot show me benefits to human race that can be exclusively related to a space programme.

 

some members compare space programme with very important things which is NOT a comparison at all. some compares space programme with other USEFUL inventions which is again an impossible comparison. i ignore these impossible comparisons for usual reasons.

 

the discussion is almost over. i conclude that sending people to other planets has no benefits for humanity since no one can show any benefit exclusively related to space programme. it is just a magnificent wastage of money and a pleasurable passtime for rich fat americans.

[Ophiolite]

the discussion is almost over..

Of course it is. That's because you refuse to address the fundamental issues and insist upon over-simplifying and mischaracterising the situation the point where it has no meaning. Developing solutions is a complex process. You can't grasp that. Your loss.

[mississippichem]

I think the only justification we truly need for going to other planets is the advancement of human knowledge. We are curious apes and we just have a desire to know more about the universe.

 

Why do we build particle accelerators? Why do we go on jungle safaris? Why do we react chemicals in flasks? It's called science man, you should try it!

[swansont]

sorry . benefits from these innovation is seen at the time of innovation.

 

 

 

expanding knowledge does not require such a huge expnditure at all.

!

Moderator Note

The spirit of rule #1 in speculations dictates that you not make statements without backing them up. Especially outlandish ones, like these, lest people come to the conclusion that you are trolling. That would lead to a one-way ticket out. Consider yourself warned.

[Mellinia]

who said the war on terror that isn't working? do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? if yes then let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. they will continue war against america in their way. besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. these enemies will attack america in their own way. besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america.

 

so defence is more necessary than space research.

 

 

 

because steam engine can carry more load and work faster than horse with no fatigue at all. steam engine can be used in industry.

 

 

 

steal sword is sharper than copper and bronze sword. it can be used in war.

 

 

 

pottery is used to make pots that store our food and necessary things.

 

 

 

seeds will grow into plants that can be used for commercial purpose.

 

 

 

house is just like another cave. i still don't get the logic of leaving cave.

 

 

why send people to another planet? why find life on another planet when we have life on earth?

 

 

 

 

Have you ever played chess? If you did, you would have known that playing against a much better player than you will heighten your ability. In spite of losing almost every time, you will still gain valuable experience. I tried it, and even though it brought me lower morale, my chess skills improved and I got better in analysing the chess field.

 

The purpose of 'going to Mars', instead of testing and creating equipment on extreme conditions of earth is that the most extreme cases of nature is rarely observable on earth compared to Mars.

Mars has an atmosphere higher in percentage of carbon dioxide than earth. By learning to tame the levels of carbon dioxide there, we get to solve our city air pollution and find ways to clean the air.

Mars has little water. That's the crux of it! Even deserts have water pockets underground but Mars have hers in the poles. By finding ways to retain and create and recycle water, we can solve the problem of water shortage in places where droughts or unclean water is common.

Mars have no lifeforms. Thus, no source of food. By solving the problem of have an self-sustaining food source on Mars, do you have any idea how many people will that feed?!

Mars have a terrain matched with absolutely horrible weather and day-night temperatures and a higher value of 'g'. By creating machines and materials that can survive those conditions we would have created much durable materials and machines better at moving around and coping with the air pressure.The tallest mountain on Mars eclipse the earth's by whopping 14 kilometers!! A past note was that solving the problem with solar glare led us to better glass materials and better cameras.

The weather on Mars is unpredictable and by constructing ways to study it, we get better ways to manipulate our weather. Have you ever been hit by a strong hurricane and lost your home or worse...? If you had, then you would probably have wished we studied ours and Mars atmosphere better.

 

While trying to decipher the way to live on mars, we learn ways to adapt to current surroundings and better, because Mars is have a hell of a place to live.

 

On the side note,

It's quite difficult to like a country whose population treat your group as a bunch of blood thirsty killers and think that your sole reason to live is to Jihad when the majority of Sunni's are opposed to the so called Jihad. Did you ever meet a muslim before? Because I have, and my country has more than half of them, and none of them want to bomb ourselves to oblivion.