2

3/23/2006 5:41:55 PM

Food is the one I'm least concerned about. We've already got enough of that now. And we're already figuring out better ways to increase yields. It's only been a problem of distribution that's gone ignored due to the total lack of profit incentive involved.

What non-renewables that we can't invent our way away from are you talking about?

Pollution would certainly be solved by hopping a ship to the moon--as far as the inhabitants are concerned anyway. We haven't been there to pollute it. And there's no atmosphere to pollute in the first place. Furthermore, we get to construct the habitat we'd live in, so unless you're suggesting it'd be polluted right off the bat, moon bases will certainly help some.

Personally, I think we'd build habitats under the oceans before we'd move to moon bases. Just seems easier to do, and more practical over the short term. Doing so would give us enough experience to perfect methods so that we'd be able to build on the moon when it was time.

3/23/2006 5:50:11 PM

look, you are still not thinking about the problem. the population of the earth is growing out of control. look, since I was born, the population of the earth has increased by 2 BILLION people. it will only increase faster from here on out. the accelleration of the population is faster than the acceleration of our food production/distribution technology. those lines are going to cross eventually, and we will have mass starvation.

3/23/2006 5:54:48 PM

How do you posit that the acceleration of our food production methods are being outpaced? You said it yourself, the population has increased by 2 BILLION people in your lifetime. And yet, there is still enough food being produced in the world to feed them all. We're not even close to out of aerable land, yet, either.

Our food distribution methods have already been outpaced, which presents its own issue and speaks to your point. But I've already agreed with that. I just happen to think it's a problem that will be solved as the economy becomes more globalized and it suddenly dawns on people that when malnourished African, South American, and Asian people are getting three subsidized squares a day, they can make just as productive and educated a labor force as we do--benefiting everyone in the long run.

Mass starvation I highly doubt. That'd only take place if there was a sudden and unexpected increase in population. While our expansion has been geometric, it's been fairly predictable. We'd see signs of unavoidable starvation long before it'd reach a massive scale. And I'd assume we'd move to prevent it from reaching such a scale; Draconianly if necessary.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ...]

3/23/2006 6:03:58 PM

i cant see food production being a problem, but food distribution certainly could (and already is)

3/23/2006 6:05:49 PM

God could always intervene and fix all of these problems though.

3/23/2006 6:10:39 PM

^^
we're too busy paying farmers to keep their crops off the market -- stop that first (thus giving incentive for food-poor countries to produce more themselves), then come talk to me about the problems of food distribution

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Is it? I'm not convinced. The more people there are, the more people there are to figure out how to accommodate more people (building housing, new methods of food production and distribution, etc.)."

Exactly. Human ingenuity is and remains our species' saving grace (beyond divine intervention of course). Get enough people in the petri dish, and we just start going up instead of out or any other number of as-yet unpondered alternatives.

I have faith in human intellect, I don't expect mass starvation or anything else. Otherwise I'd just shoot myself now so I don't have to face the inhumanity down the road.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ---]

3/23/2006 7:30:29 PM

http://www.liftport.com/

Some of these projects are expecting to reduce the price to a few hundred dollars per pound to lift something into space.

With refinement and next-generation elevators, it could be even cheaper.

Just wait folks, just wait, the technology is in the works.

And kris, honestly:

Quote :

"Two groups of people, group A and group B. Group A spends lots of money on space research which it finds little return on. Group B spends no money on space research and instead spends it on other scientific uses such as curing disease, enlarging the food supply, etc. Group B gets a huge return on their investment in themselves, and can now spend pennies of its relative wealth on space research and FAR outspend and outresearch group A."

We're group B already, not group A (which you might call China). Our government has a budget of 2.119 trillion, they spend 2.466 trillion (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2056.html). NASA makes up about .7% of the federal budget (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/HQ_06056_Budget_Statement.html 1*), and they do not put all of that money to space developments. They are responsible for many technological enhancements in aircraft design/safety, vehicle performance/safety, and a wide variety of other things in society (A list of some technology due in part to NASA: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html). Thanks to the technology associated with, developed by, or indirectly resulting from the space program, I have my insulin pump which makes my quality of life much higher compared to what it would be if I was stuck with needles.

If you want to bitch about "wasted money", bitch about the defense budget. Tell them to halt spending on some of the future research projects on technology that would be excessive, considering our military (and especially our air force) is insanely powerful as it is (E.G. a laser that could be mounted on a jet fighter: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/hellads.htm). You could tell them to be more frugal in their spending so that they don't end up cancelling projects after having already spent billions on them (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040223-comanche02.htm). You could also protest to end the wars (which have cost us billions and billions already) and promote more openness in defense contracts, requiring that no-bid contracts be outlawed as an unfair practice (competition is good, it prevents monopolies from dominating the market and overcharging for things). You could even go so far as to say that no one contractor should be allowed to dominate the market in any field (E.G. Halliburton), and that the military should invest in the market just like any other business to keep startup defense contractors out there that provide fresh thinking for the market and competition for the big shots. Let's not get started on the corruption that's probably measured in the billions by now resulting from politicians having ties to defense contractors (didn't LBJ have stock ties to some of the chemical companies behind Napalm and the "Agent Orange" deforesting agent used in the Vietnam war?).

This isn't to say that defense investment by the government isn't important either. We have a lot of technology nowadays that resulted directly from military spending and the defense industry (and their research and development), but if you are going to talk about direct civilian benefit from government spending, you're going to see more benefit from a $1 billion reallocation of defense money (towards, say, education) than you will from a $1 billion reallocation of NASA/space money.





1*

Quote :

"However, let me put our budget in overall perspective. NASA's budget is roughly 0.7 percent of the overall federal budget."

Third paragraph, First sentence.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 8:39 PM. Reason : 1*]

3/23/2006 8:38:16 PM

Quote :

"In games like MoO, spaceports always gave the economy a boost..."

3/23/2006 8:56:16 PM

^^ If there is money to be made in space then private investment will make it.

Extensive government investment in space will disuade private interests from investing (what idiot wants to compete with Uncle Sam?) Therefore, you had better hope uncle sam does everything exactly right, because there will be no other attempters.

3/23/2006 9:17:28 PM

^ Yeah... and private investment is working in space... Hence the X-Prize, liftport, and the development of space ports* like this. There's just no reason to cut funding to NASA (and that's what the whole mini-paper in my post was about).

* The space ports SHOULD, in theory, encourage private business by providing the infrastructure required to go into space given present technology. I realize this one is being funded by the gubmint.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : haha, I should clarify this]

3/23/2006 9:23:44 PM

Quote :

"""I like to think of legacy issues," Richardson says."

I think this is the governor's true motivation..the Bill Richardson Memorial Space-Port.

SpaceShipOne, successfully flew into space. And it did so at a fraction of the cost of government efforts: The $20 million SpaceShipOne program cost only about 5 percent as much as a single NASA shuttle mission.

Private enterprise is showing that it can tackle space exploration (which I whole-heartily support) much more effectively than gov't. Give the $500 million back to the people who had to cough it up and find something else much cheaper to slap Richardson's name on.

3/23/2006 9:59:33 PM

space ship one BARELY made it into space, much less into orbit. of course it cost less. not to mention that the government is the one who invested into rocket research heavily in the 50's on, so now private companies can base their own engines off of that research.

3/23/2006 10:29:41 PM

Quote :

"a commie advocating private companies to do anything makes me lol"

I just don't like our government wasting money, I don't give a fuck if private companies do it.

Quote :

"Because it is an unbelievable feat."

What that we can shoot missles into space? Why is that so "unbelievable"?

Quote :

" just to let you know, those satellites they put in orbit don't just chill out there doing nothing."

Ok, I give those first russians props, but I can't see any practicality for doing anything more than satelites (which are really just an extension of the antenna).

Quote :

"Titan has enough fuel on its surface and atmosphere to power the entire world for 200 million years."

And with the money you spent getting that you could have developed a much more efficient fuel out of the stuff we have here.

Quote :

"However, while gold is considered one of the best conductors it can be said that such a surplus of it from Mercury would drop its value on Earth so much that it would be considered no more valueble than copper."

Besides the fact that the value of gold now doesn't justify the cost it would take to get it from there, we would just be losing money bringing that much over.

Quote :

" Rocks? Iron is found in "rocks." Titanium is found in "rocks." Aluminum, too."

We have plenty of all that shit here, and it doesn't cost billions to mine either.

Quote :

"Plenty of valuable minerals worth millions--even billions--of dollars per asteroid"

And it would cost us trillions to get it. What a wonderful investment.

Quote :

"t makes no sense to solely populate this planet from a pure species preservation standpoint, and eventually it will be a necessity due to overcrowding on the surface anyway."

Ok, when those become an issue, we can start shipping people off. But as long as we have HUGE tracks of unpopulated land here on earth, I don't see the point.

Quote :

"but we will need to eventually"

I'll agree with that, but to do it prematurely wastes money, and even hinders our entire species.

Quote :

"It's already getting crowded here."

You're kidding me right? We have plenty of land, and hell, living in the bottom of the ocean would be cheaper and more hospitable.

Quote :

"You know gov bureaucracy is going to waste alot of money."

That's as much of an issue with group A as it is group b, and as such, I chose to ignore it.

Quote :

"Gold isn't the most expensive metal. Lutetium, for example, costs about six times as much."

And yet it still doesn't justify the cost.

Quote :

"We're group B already, not group A"

We have an assload of problems. We should still be investing in ourselves.

Quote :

"NASA makes up about .7% of the federal budget"

I love this arguement. It's like if I robbed a conveince store and the cops came to arrest me and I said "Hey, there are people that steal way more money than I do, you should be arresting them!". I don't care if you have a small budget, the fact is you're still wasting money. And I don't care if other people are wasting more, you're still wasting money.

.7% is still an assload of money

Quote :

"Thanks to the technology associated with, developed by, or indirectly resulting from the space program, I have my insulin pump which makes my quality of life much higher compared to what it would be if I was stuck with needles."

You don't think if the government had invested those billions of dollars directly into medical research, you wouldn't have that and a shit load of much better medical products? Shit with that kind of money, we could have cured cancer and AIDS.

3/23/2006 10:48:05 PM

what you don't understand is that we aren't exploring space right now to make a monetary profit. we are exploring it to better our understanding of the universe, our solar system, as well as the earth its self. knowledge is CRITICAL for modern civilizations... the civilizations that have more knowledge will thrive much more than civilizations without it. things that we learn about space NOW are going to guide our future progress into the solar system. it's not like a future civilization that needs the resources that space can offer wil be able to say "well, now it's time to go to space. lets all get on our rockets and go get the stuff we need"... it takes RESEARCH now to make future technologies possible.

and ANYONE who argues that the huge scientific gain we have gotten from the space program isn't worth it is... well... wrong.

3/23/2006 11:09:51 PM

Quote :

"knowledge is CRITICAL for modern civilizations"

So right, Smath, but the Congress has very specific responsibilities defined in the Constitution...and space exploration is definitely not one of them.

3/24/2006 12:35:23 AM

did that bitch just say we needed "diamonds and gold"

dieplzthx

3/24/2006 12:37:41 AM

Quote :

"knowledge is CRITICAL for modern civilizations"

Knowing that pluto is cold doesn't help our civilization. Knowing what it feels like to walk on the moon didn't help. Knowing what the moon is made of doesn't help.

Knowing all these things is only helpful if we intend to live or harvest from these distant locations. Since the technology doesn't exist to do so, I guarantee the information is of no more value than making us feel good about ourselves. If all we wanted to do was waste money and feel good about it, P&T suggests heroine.

Spend the money making satellites cheaper, or developing new power-sources, etc. etc. When we actually are able to mine the moon, finding out what it is made of at that time will be far cheaper, especially when you discount the future value.

Spend $60 Billion 30 years ago, or $6 Billion 20 years from now when the information does become potentially useful.

3/24/2006 1:14:20 AM

we got a lot more out of that early investment than just rocks on the moon or photos of pluto. This includes direct spinoff technologies as well as the way it changed our work force and culture. The US attitude toward science and technology was changed in the country because of the space program.

The economic value of a culture geared more toward fundamental scientific advance is a hell of a lot more than $60 billion spent decades ago.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 1:22 AM. Reason : sdf]

3/24/2006 1:20:18 AM

^^jesus you are incredibly short sighted. science is done for the sake of understanding the universe, not to make us "feel good".

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

3/24/2006 1:22:45 AM

Ok. Most people in this thread agree that it is not profitable right now to develop space travel. Was it profitable for Europeans to go to America the first couple times? Eventually it balanced out with enough tobacco, gold, other New World Products. Eventually space travel will become profitible, however we just have to suck it up and deal with the cost until we get to that point.

3/24/2006 1:26:53 AM

^^he has an easy position. He can just pull his sophistry all day and say that it would have turned out better if the government had not done it, but he has no actual evidence to the contrary -- only highly abstract and simplified economic models that are notorious for not being able to make predictions.

Also, economic models ignore very real political contexts. Were we supposed to back down while the soviets appeared to be making huge leaps in technological advance???


[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 1:52 AM. Reason : asdasd]

3/24/2006 1:29:30 AM

Quote :

"Was it profitable for Europeans to go to America the first couple times?"

HELLO? YES IT WAS! On columbus' first visit, he received an offering of gold (big mistake) from the native islanders in excess of what the first journey cost. Within a generation of discovering America, the Spanish were rampaging around Mexico sending home treasure ships.

You may call me short sighted, but I have hind-sight on my side. It turned out that nearly all of our space research has been worthless. The moon is made of boring rocks, so is mars. Yes, if it turned out the moon composed entirely of pre-processed [insert expensive material] then maybe it would have been otherwise.

But arguing that we wouldn't have developed the technology we did without the space program is naive. Many of the technologies the "space program" is credited with were independently invented, the space program was merely its first use. Either way, instead of hiring 100 researchers, 200 technicians, and a dozen astronaughts, would we not have discovered more by just employing 312 researchers?

Satellites were the only major benefit to society and that technology had nothing to do with NASA, but instead the DOD working on spy-satellites which were worth every-penny in their own-right.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 2:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/24/2006 2:43:47 AM

We knew the moon was made of rock, we know Mars is made of rock and some ice. However there are moons out there that have water on them, not ice but water. Will it be worth it if we find other life out there? We did not go to the moon thinking it was made of cheese or some other fancy material.

We are also in the infancey of space exploration. People had been sailing for a long time before Columbus made it across the pond. Give space travel another 1000 years and the results will be amazing.

We had to beat the Russians to the moon and that reason alone is worth it..

3/24/2006 8:38:48 AM

you guys are unimaginably ignorant and naive if you think spending money on space exploration doesnt benefit our species.

Saying The moon and mars are just boring rocks just shows how dense you are to the subject.

So we spend the billions on making your life more comfortable

so the fuck what? once youre dead what the fuck do we have? some fella that had a comfy life. meanwhile our species is sitting stagnant on this little rock, no more intelligent to what is beyond our atmoshphere.

its rediculously depressing that there are people who think exploration of the unknown is a waste of money. that kind of thinking is what is going to 'doom' the species. crossing that bridge when we come to it doesnt work for this shit

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 9:08 AM. Reason : *]

3/24/2006 9:07:47 AM

Quote :

"What that we can shoot missles into space? Why is that so "unbelievable"?"

Let me repeat a previous statement for you:

Perhaps the fact that you were born into an era of spaceflight has prevented you from seeing just how awesome of an opportunity it is.

We have designed vehicles that can move at 17000 miles per hour while still somewhat within the atmosphere, operate under pressure (In the atmosphere), in a vacuum (In space), can withstand the forces and intense heat of re-entry, glide safely to a pre-determined runway without power, all while carrying living beings and cargo. You do realize that we managed to fly to the moon a mere 60 years or so after the first powered aircraft flight? That is truly unbelievable. Rockets havent existed forever dumbass.

3/24/2006 9:38:05 AM

Quote :

"did that bitch just say we needed "diamonds and gold""

Both of these have very practical industrial purposes.

Quote :

"we got a lot more out of that early investment than just rocks on the moon or photos of pluto."

But did we get enough to justify the oppurtunity cost of investing it in other, more practical, areas of research?

Quote :

"The US attitude toward science and technology was changed in the country because of the space program."

It's changed because of computer and electronic descoveries much moreso than space discoveries. The governnment and universities spend pennies on this kind of research relative to the space program and we have gained exponentially more from that technology over space travel.

Quote :

"Was it profitable for Europeans to go to America the first couple times?"

Yes. That is why so many more colonies were set up. Imperialism only works when the place you go actually has something useful enough to justify the costs.

Quote :

"However there are moons out there that have water on them, not ice but water."

The planet we're on right now has a whole shitload of water. And hell there are forms of life here that we still don't know about.

Quote :

"We have designed vehicles that can move at 17000 miles per hour while still somewhat within the atmosphere, operate under pressure (In the atmosphere), in a vacuum (In space), can withstand the forces and intense heat of re-entry, glide safely to a pre-determined runway without power, all while carrying living beings and cargo. You do realize that we managed to fly to the moon a mere 60 years or so after the first powered aircraft flight? That is truly unbelievable. Rockets havent existed forever dumbass."

Wonderful. We've also invented a box that can prepare a meal in 3 minutes, and another box that can allow us to compute complex equations in milliseconds. I'm more impressed by both of those.
Shooting missles doesn't give me an erection.

3/24/2006 1:06:59 PM

Kris trolls the soap box at a level I can't ever hope to reach.

Daps to you good sir.

3/24/2006 1:22:38 PM

some call it a gift, some call it a curse

3/24/2006 1:28:40 PM

Yeah I guess I just wasn't thinking that you were so immature that you'd be trolling in the soapbox. Chit chat is where that kind of thing belongs.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : -SaabTurbo]

3/24/2006 2:18:20 PM

I'm not really trolling, I really believe that we are prematurely spending money on space research. The outcome does not justify the cost right now.

3/24/2006 8:57:04 PM

Quote :

"You don't think if the government had invested those billions of dollars directly into medical research, you wouldn't have that and a shit load of much better medical products? Shit with that kind of money, we could have cured cancer and AIDS."

My god, he is a worthless bitch ass troll.

(You know more than goddamned well that this government doesn't want to cure disease and that it won't. Treating it is more profitable.)

3/24/2006 11:00:55 PM

Oddly, in this thread, I think Kris is the only one NOT trolling... go figure.

3/25/2006 1:03:02 AM

well, you are clearly wrong.

3/25/2006 1:47:19 AM

Quote :

"You know more than goddamned well that this government doesn't want to cure disease and that it won't. Treating it is more profitable."

That is in the best interest of the drug companies. It is in our government's best interest that you stay a strong working citizen for longer, so you can continue to draw taxable income.

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 3:43 AM. Reason : And I've posted my same arguements in several of the other space threads if you don't believe me]

3/25/2006 3:42:53 AM

"Where's That Damn Spaceport???"

"I Blame KRIS, Captain"

[Edited on March 25, 2006 at 10:22 AM. Reason : -)]

3/25/2006 10:17:53 AM

hahaha

3/25/2006 12:18:41 PM

Quote :

"It is in our government's best interest that you stay a strong working citizen for longer, so you can continue to draw taxable income."

Oh yes, this is true. But in order for our government to listen to that logic, I think we're going to have to pull out some hatchets and go mel gibson on the lobbyists for the drug industries.

Until then...

3/25/2006 5:26:33 PM

I had considered drug company lobbyists, the way I figure, the drug company lobbyists would be going up agianst a good number of other lobbyists and industries. Marlboro would absolutely love it if the government could cure lung cancer. McDonalds would be estatic if the government could cure heart disease. That kind of research would benefit pretty much every industry other than the medical industry. They are the only ones who need to keep their customers in sickness.

3/25/2006 6:44:10 PM

Sooner or later this planet will become uninhabitable..not in this life time, not in the next 100 life times, but eventually it will be.

And tell me Kris how was the first expedition (Colombus) profitble? He lost 2 of 3 ships, the majority of his crew, etc.

3/28/2006 3:13:05 AM

One could argue that true western civilization would have been better off had Columbus stfu'd and stayed home.

3/28/2006 10:47:38 AM

You could, but I don't think you would get very far.

The discovery of the Americas was inevitable. If it hadn't been 1492, it would have been 1519, or similar.

3/28/2006 10:59:59 AM

Quote :

"Sooner or later this planet will become uninhabitable..not in this life time, not in the next 100 life times, but eventually it will be."

When that begins to become an issue, then we can begin to spend money on it.

Quote :

"And tell me Kris how was the first expedition (Colombus) profitble? He lost 2 of 3 ships, the majority of his crew, etc."

Reread what I quoted:
"Was it profitable for Europeans to go to America the first couple times?"

It was, many europeans came back with ships full of gold and valuebles.

[Edited on March 28, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

3/28/2006 12:29:44 PM

and also dark skinned bitches

3/28/2006 12:30:46 PM