Obama: "I am 100 percent committed to NASA and its future."
198 replies, posted
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/ten-nasa-inventions.htm[/url]
Needs to find solution such as putting human beings in another planet causes people to be innovative and make things that'll become available for civilian use soon.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;37587770]I'm not hugely knowledgeable about the subject, but in my opinion putting a man on the moon again would be kind of a waste, what have we got to learn from the moon that we didn't cover back in '69? Back then there was huge pressure to do so ('Space Race' etc.) but now there isn't really a reason for going back there. Instead, we should put our efforts into getting a man on Mars, as you say.[/QUOTE]
I think using the moon as a jump point to Mars is better. Also the moon has an incredible amount of resources that can be mined.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;37597849]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.[/QUOTE]
The 2012 budget requested over 3 trillion in expenditures, so no, $324 million still isn't a lot.
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
[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]
Because sending researchers to study an alien world is equivalent to jumping into a volcano?
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Derposaurus;37597856]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]
What planet would that be anyway? Not one close by, and how do we plan to approach it? Since we aren't going anywhere except there, ever, with people, with your plan, we'll never have a practice go to perfect our method.
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
People go into the field of science because they think it's fucking cool, why do people in this thread think something being cool somehow discredits it from scientific pursuit?
Being cool does not discredit anything. However, being cool is not a legitimate reason to spend public money on a project.
Everyone on Facepunch just seems to think about these things in terms of how cool they are.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37602347]Being cool does not discredit anything. However, being cool is not a legitimate reason to spend public money on a project.
Everyone on Facepunch just seems to think about these things in terms of how cool they are.[/QUOTE]
But no one here on Facepunch works for NASA. If NASA has planned something, odds are they have a perfectly sound reason for doing it, besides it being cool. Why you're expecting anything more from people on the internet commenting on a news article, I'll never know.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37602347]Being cool does not discredit anything. However, being cool is not a legitimate reason to spend public money on a project.
Everyone on Facepunch just seems to think about these things in terms of how cool they are.[/QUOTE]
Um yea, being cool is an excellent reason for spending public money on a project considering that is pretty much the point of science.
If we didn't fund cool stuff, we would have never even gotten to the moon, or into space at all in the first place.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;37597861]We already know mars is totally uninhabitable, until that is rectified theres absolutely no point in sending people to mars. Y[B]ou may as well throw somebody into an active volcano[/B], all itd show you is just how inhospitable of an environment it is, it doesnt change the logistics of making it feasibly habitable.[/QUOTE]
You make it sound like we've never done that, just to see what's in there.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5636656/2010-10-23-15-00-45-5-new-zealander-mackley-said-he-seriously-considered.jpeg[/img]
Have we ever put a human on another planet? No.
If it happened, it would reinvigorate science all around the same way the moon landing did. We need to know how to do this, or else we'll be stranded on this rock until it runs out of things to give.
Why have the ISS when robots can do better? Why land on the moon if robots can do better? Why have the space shuttle? Humans are not robots, therefore, the robot gives no data on how humans will be able to handle the stresses. Being able to send humans to other planets will be a big step in our path towards space exploration and colonization.
All I can see in increasing commitment in space exploration, is to create a tourism business like how Virgin Galactic is planning to do things.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37602347]Being cool does not discredit anything. However, being cool is not a legitimate reason to spend public money on a project.
Everyone on Facepunch just seems to think about these things in terms of how cool they are.[/QUOTE]
You would be right if that was the only reason we were giving. However, many other reasons were given.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;37599696]We don't know. That's why we need people to push frontiers.[/QUOTE]
Pushing frontiers also allows the private sector to follow. Look at earth orbit for example. At first, only governments could get into orbit. Now, private companies are launching spacecraft into space and soon people too. Government (NASA) needs to test the water and show that you won't drown before the private sector will follow. If NASA goes to the moon and demonstrates the technology needed and provides cis-lunar business to the private sector they will soon follow, and the jobs and money will follow.
[QUOTE=AK'z;37603569]All I can see in increasing commitment in space exploration, is to create a tourism business like how Virgin Galactic is planning to do things.[/QUOTE]
And don't forget about mining.
[QUOTE=Pelf;37608948]You would be right if that was the only reason we were giving. However, many other reasons were given.[/QUOTE]
If you look at the first page or so nobody's talking about any benefits of going they're just talking about how we should go.
I suppose it was around the time someone showed skepticism about a higher NASA budget that everyone Googled "economic benefits of NASA" and set to work.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37609223]If you look at the first page or so nobody's talking about any benefits of going they're just talking about how we should go.
I suppose it was around the time someone showed skepticism about a higher NASA budget that everyone Googled "economic benefits of NASA" and set to work.[/QUOTE]
Okay, does that mean every Facepunch member is like that? No.
Hello, I am Tigster, and what is synecdoche
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37609343]Hello, I am Tigster, and what is synecdoche[/QUOTE]
I don't know I've never heard of a synecdoche.
[editline]9th September 2012[/editline]
My bad, thought that was a misspelling, was going to poke at it.
Well yes it is an obscure term but it's one of those things that you should understand the concept of regardless of whether or not you know the word
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37609392]Well yes it is an obscure term but it's one of those things that you should understand the concept of regardless of whether or not you know the word[/QUOTE]
I understand the concept, did not recognize the term at first, my point is that it's really tiring seeing you spend your time in this thread acting like nobody cares about anything but coolness.
