I don't think it is really possible to justify a lot of space research beyond sattelite launchings before the existence of poverty and armed conflict is solved.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
About the U.S. Government's Cutting NASA's Funding
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think we should look after our own planet first, and not wast money on space projects.
Back when I worked in aerospace, the engineers were overwhelmingly Republican.
So I think they understood the science better than most.
It's something a mere anthropologist might never see
It's more important than eliminating poverty, which might not even be solvable.
He just wanted to see that big vein on your forehead pop out in anger.
I must admit that I enjoy watching it throb too.
You've a real talent there.
Just call me a "poopy head" or a "jerk".Look, if I can't unjustly apply an overarching political label to you, I am not interested in discussing politics!
That's always in season.
Papoon
Active Member
I understand your sentiments here. However there is short term and long term.
The resources which can be exploited - such as 24/7 solar collectors, lunar helium-3, and the huge mineral resource which is the asteroid belt- could have huge positive impact on the wealth and wellbeing of an inceasingly large global population. It may well be something we cannot afford NOT to do.
You mean NSA, not NASA, right?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Maybe, maybe not ?.
Uh, no, it is not.
May it? How would mining the asteroids even be viable from an economical perspective?
And how would it be more than a momentary reprieve for the demands caused by that large population even if it were viable?
Even if it were, I still wouldn't stop space exploration.
There's nothing more interesting & inspiring than what lays beyond our little blue planet.
And NASA is so gosh darn cheap.
No reason why we can't do both.
Papoon
Active Member
Congress wanted the answer to that question in the early 1960s.
So a think tank was established. The head honcho appointed to manage the thinktank was Gerard K O'Neill.
Members of the think tank were post grad engineering students, who took up the option of being part of the think tank as an alternative to the usual PHD.
This is all documented in the book 'The High Frontier' by O'Neill, which was written as a pop nonfiction after Congress under the Reagan government called in the think tank's analysis.
It is recommended reading.
The asteroid belt equals 38000 earths in terms of mining. That is why the international rush is on to get to Mars and build bases. The asteroid belt lies between Mars and Jupiter.
I can tell you more if you are interested.
Funny you should ask! ULA is launching a mission in the fall to do just this! I give you... OSIRIS-REx!!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think that the trend that NASA has bought into over the last couple of decades makes sense, namely far fewer manned missions and more unmanned exploratory missions with satellites and space probes. The NASA budget is quite small when looking at the total budget, and I don't think it's wise to eliminate research.
Correct, especially since manned missions from here on out are much more complicated and require a significant amount of R&D. Landing on Mars is a completely different ball game than landing on the moon. The good news is there are many players in the game trying to figure it out outside of the agency in addition to NASA's own efforts.