Obama: "I am 100 percent committed to NASA and its future." - Polidicks

So go mine some asteroids or something. Walking on the moon is not a particularly lucrative effort I don't think.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37594879]So go mine some asteroids or something. Walking on the moon is not a particularly lucrative effort I don't think.[/QUOTE] Making a base and mining resources could be. The technology developed to get there again could also be beneficial. NASA shouldn't get more money just because it's cool (it is very cool though), it should get more money because it's beneficial both for both technology and the economy.

[QUOTE=Downsider;37589181]Is space exploration really worth it? DARPA comes up with the cool shit anyway and they're protecting us at the same time.[/QUOTE] "I'm sure the universe is littered with the single planet graveyards of species who made the sensible economic decision to not go into space." I don't know that was, it may have be Carl Sagan. Words of wisdom nonetheless.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;37596646]"I'm sure the universe is littered with the single planet graveyards of species who made the sensible economic decision to not go into space." I don't know that was, it may have be Carl Sagan. Words of wisdom nonetheless.[/QUOTE] [url=http://xkcd.com/893/]Randall Munroe[/url] actually

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37587710]If he still really cares about NASA, by the end of the decade we should have a man on the surface of the moon. I mean projects like Voyager and Curiosity are awesome, but I think what really excites people and what we really need now is more manned space exploration. We landed on the moon over 40 years ago, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't be on Mars yet.[/QUOTE] The logistical problems behind sending people outside earths electromagnetic field are astronomical. The spacecraft needs to be intensly shileded, you need to be able to find atronauts who can handle a couple of months living in a tiny space with a bunch of other people... the people themselves are very fragile and far from expendable. Putting somebody on mars would be a huge waste of money when you can instead spend the same volume of money to send troves of advanced robotic probes to basically every other moon and planet of interest in the solar system.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597373] Putting somebody on mars would be a huge waste of money when you can instead spend the same volume of money to send troves of advanced robotic probes to basically every other moon and planet of interest in the solar system.[/QUOTE] It's not really a waste of money when it pushes scientific and engineering frontiers.

It's interesting how quickly this turned into such a narrow discussion, focused solely on the benefits of putting someone on the moon, when NASA is responsible for so much more than that, which is the whole reason for much of the argument to begin with.

Why would we want to put a colony on Mars, exactly? Yeah it's a novel idea, having some far-out base on another planet but let's face it, what is so valuable about sending someone to Mars. I don't mean psychological benefits like "suddenly now that we pushed our engineering so high people will do more science" or something like that, I mean serious, actual benefits like resources we can get from the planet. It would drain resources fast, and when that was drained we would just have to abandon the station. In the far future, yes. In the current era, no.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37597454]It's not really a waste of money when it pushes scientific and engineering frontiers.[/QUOTE] It doesnt get any easier to shield people from deadly cosmic rays. People can die from cosmic radiation, robots cant. People get hungry and thirsty every days, robots dont. People die if they go under or over their comfortable heat ranges, robots dont. People can go insane in the most desolate conditions feasibly reachable by human beings, robots dont. Do you see the pattern? They get to mars, they go "cool, this place has no stable atmosphere, no electromagnetic shield, and is utterly uninhabitable to anything except robots at this point in time, why are we here, again?" Fuck if youre going to spend that much money, you may as well just create and drop self replicating mining and building robots on the planet so you can actually build an inhabitable settlement. At least that would actually accomplish something.

[QUOTE=Derposaurus;37597559]Why would we want to put a colony on Mars, exactly? Yeah it's a novel idea, having some far-out base on another planet but let's face it, what is so valuable about sending someone to Mars. I don't mean psychological benefits like "suddenly now that we pushed our engineering so high people will do more science" or something like that, I mean serious, actual benefits like resources we can get from the planet. It would drain resources fast, and when that was drained we would just have to abandon the station. In the far future, yes. In the current era, no.[/QUOTE] It can serve as a refueling stop for further manned missions. It would be cool going to Europa or Titan and exploring their surfaces. [editline]9th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597571]It doesnt get any easier to shield people from deadly cosmic rays. People can die from cosmic radiation, robots cant. People get hungry and thirsty every days, robots dont. People die if they go under or over their comfortable heat ranges, robots dont. People can go insane in the most desolate conditions feasibly reachable by human beings, robots dont. Do you see the pattern? They get to mars, they go "cool, this place has no stable atmosphere, no electromagnetic shield, and is utterly uninhabitable to anything except robots at this point in time, why are we here, again?" Fuck if youre going to spend that much money, you may as well just create and drop self replicating mining and building robots on the planet so you can actually build an inhabitable settlement. At least that would actually accomplish something.[/QUOTE] So learning more about the universe is simply a money issue for you? When is science "not worth it" anymore?

People don't seem to realize that the technology we would need to safely put a man on Mars is more than we have right now. The race to get to Mars, or any other extraterrestrial body really, would spur us to invent new things in the process. Think of all the things we got just by going to the moon, and imagine what would happen in the U.S really started working towards a common goal like that again. I would say it's no small leap to say that a second space race would bring the U.S out of its recession, or at the very least help us out.

A better question is, why does learning about the universe need to be soley confined to sending people to gigantic desert planets when a robot can stay there much longer and send back much more useful information? Thats the point, robotic probes are much cheaper to send, they last much longer than people, they can traverse longer distances, etc. Its rediculous that people just dont give a shit about space explortation unless its "herp send people to mars for no reason when robotic probes can bring back more info."

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37597591]... So learning more about the universe is simply a money issue for you? When is science "not worth it" anymore?[/QUOTE] Science stops being worth it the second you have to take a packed lunch with you.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597686]A better question is, why does learning about the universe need to be soley confined to sending people to gigantic desert planets when a robot can stay there much longer and send back much more useful information? Thats the point, robotic probes are much cheaper to send, they last much longer than people, they can traverse longer distances, etc. Its rediculous that people just dont give a shit about space explortation unless its "herp send people to mars for no reason when robotic probes can bring back more info."[/QUOTE] It isn't just about sending back info. Like I said, it's about pushing frontiers. It's about solving practical problems. Even after you get someone to Mars, you can always get them there faster, or make their trip more comfortable, or be able to pack on more tools, or make it so they can stay longer. Solving these problems requires new inventions. These inventions are not only applicable to us on Earth, they will push us towards having permanent settlements on other heavenly bodies; ensuring our longevity as a species.

Pray tell, what sorts of things could one learn by sending a man to mars? Or what sort of technology that we dont already have could be developed to somehow make transporting 1000 lbs of fat and muscle tissue to an uninhabitable planet any easier?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37597591]It can serve as a refueling stop for further manned missions. It would be cool going to Europa or Titan and exploring their surfaces. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]cool[/QUOTE] That's my point right there, "cool." Yeah, it'd be neat as shit to land someone on mars, but why the fuck would we do it? To set up a refueling point for future space missions? That's not worth the metric fuckton of resources reequired to do such a thing. [quote]So learning more about the universe is simply a money issue for you? When is science "not worth it" anymore?[/quote] Science stops being worth it when you put people's lives at risk when there is a much easier solution, AKA what toad is saying.

Colonize the moon

[QUOTE=Rammaster;37597802]Colonize the moon[/QUOTE] We're too late, the Nazis already have

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37597591]So learning more about the universe is simply a money issue for you? When is science "not worth it" anymore?[/QUOTE] It isn't realistic to pretend that there cannot be placed a limit on how much money spent is appropriate for scientific gain. We have to draw a line, the question is where.

[QUOTE=Kaihong;37590005] [QUOTE=Bobie;37587965][img]http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=NASA%20budget%20Vs.%20Military%20budget&chs=740x275&chco=0e3bef,ff0f0f&chd=t:1.8,98.2&cht=p3&chl=2010%20NASA%20budget|2010%20Military%20budget[/img] lol gg[/QUOTE] I want to see that flipped the other way around.[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24554595/Facepunch/chart_flipped.png[/img]

Setting up moon bases and shit is part of the future of the human species. Sure, that money could be used to shoot brown people, but setting up bases on the moon helps us learn how we can colonize planets, and eventually explore the universe and expand our species. Although, I have to say there are a lot of things I'd like to have the military budget redirected to (Health Care, green energy stuff, etc) and tbh there's plenty of slices of the military pie to go around.

[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;37587652]1.5%, I think it's not much, but also not nothing. Baby steps.[/QUOTE] 1.5% may not seem like a lot as a percentage, but considering NASA has a current budget of almost 18 billion dollars, that's an increase amount of $324 million dollars.

I think we should only colonize planets that we can [B]sustain[/B] ourselves on. For the other planets with useful resources, just set up a robotic colony if you are going to go through the effort of landing some people there. They can sustain themselves (Solar, if i'm correct on how it would work)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37597759]It isn't just about sending back info. Like I said, it's about pushing frontiers. It's about solving practical problems. Even after you get someone to Mars, you can always get them there faster, or make their trip more comfortable, or be able to pack on more tools, or make it so they can stay longer. Solving these problems requires new inventions. These inventions are not only applicable to us on Earth, they will push us towards having permanent settlements on other heavenly bodies; ensuring our longevity as a species.[/QUOTE] We already know mars is totally uninhabitable, until that is rectified theres absolutely no point in sending people to mars. You may as well throw somebody into an active volcano, all itd show you is just how inhospitable of an environment it is, it doesnt change the logistics of making it feasibly habitable.

[IMG]http://puu.sh/13mMi[/IMG] EDIT [QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597861]We already know mars is totally uninhabitable, until that is rectified theres absolutely no point in sending people to mars. You may as well throw somebody into an active volcano, all itd show you is just how inhospitable of an environment it is, it doesnt change the logistics of making it feasibly habitable.[/QUOTE] Yes that's why certain lichens can survive on mars.

[QUOTE=Nutt007;37597874] Yes that's why certain lichens can survive on mars.[/QUOTE] Unless you plan on feeding the colonists lichens, I can't see your point. Humans are different entirely from lichens.

You can send several ships with the parts to make small buildings for green houses and such, and then slowly add more to the station. Every month or so rotate people and send more supplies. For a long time it wouldn't be useful at all and would be very expensive, but it would teach us how we can do it later, and possibly mine for minerals.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597790]Pray tell, what sorts of things could one learn by sending a man to mars? Or what sort of technology that we dont already have could be developed to somehow make transporting 1000 lbs of fat and muscle tissue to an uninhabitable planet any easier?[/QUOTE] Well, I can't tell you every thing since I'm not an engineer working on a manned mission to Mars. However, I would assume fuel would be a major issue. You can't refuel halfway through your trip to Mars, you have to go on essentially one tank. That means higher efficiency in the engines without sacrificing speed(since these guys need to get there before they lose too much bone and muscle mass). You have to design a rocket that will be able to land on the surface of Mars, take off again, and be able to make it back to Earth and land. That's a pretty tall order. Both of these things(as well as many more) might involve solutions that are beneficial to humans on Earth. Plus, how can you put a price tag on sending a [i]human[/i] to Mars. This shouldn't even be a question of utility. This is a question of [i]cool[/i] as well. People don't do science just because it might help someone out in some way in the future, they do science because they are driven to, it's fucking awesome. It just so happens that science ends up benefiting humanity in the process. [QUOTE=Derposaurus;37597796]That's my point right there, "cool." Yeah, it'd be neat as shit to land someone on mars, but why the fuck would we do it? To set up a refueling point for future space missions? That's not worth the metric fuckton of resources reequired to do such a thing. Science stops being worth it when you put people's lives at risk when there is a much easier solution, AKA what toad is saying.[/QUOTE] You know that electricity was just some "cool" when it was first discovered, right? It had no practical uses and no one knew for sure what potential uses it could have in the future. Humans began utilizing electricity because it was fucking awesome to make the very essence of our universe bend to our will. That discovery is now so integral to our daily lives. The same goes with quantum mechanics. Nothing but a novelty until it came to dominate our society.

[QUOTE=Derposaurus;37597932]Unless you plan on feeding the colonists lichens, I can't see your point[/QUOTE] The point is that, Mars isn't completely uninhabitable. It is a very good candidate for colonization. It has water, a 24 hour day, and the temperature range isn't too dramatic. Mars is simply a dryer, colder version of Earth. There is radiation sure, but radiation shielding isn't a new technology.

Some people need to watch some Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597790]Pray tell, what sorts of things could one learn by sending a man to mars? Or what sort of technology that we dont already have could be developed to somehow make transporting 1000 lbs of fat and muscle tissue to an uninhabitable planet any easier?[/QUOTE] We don't know. That's why we need people to push frontiers.