dobopoq said:
Well, AubieTurtle, you're right - there is a huge difference between unmanned and manned space flight. The most immediate benefit that can be gained from space research is to expand the search for NEO's and develop techniques for diverting bollides - and this is of the unmanned variety.
See, I'd think that the most immediate benefit of space exploration would be understanding dynamics of water (Europa), climate change (Mars), planet formation (the asteroid belt), geothermics (IO), atmospherics (Venus), or magnetism (Uranus).
That just comes from not getting one's ideas about space from playing Asteroids.
The vast majority of NASA's budget is consumed by programs that do none of those things. Sure, I'd love to see continued unmanned space exploration, but we could do that with a fraction of the money NASA now gets. In fact we could kill the worthless shuttle and space station, double the unmanned exploration budget, and still save billions every year.
It really comes down to a question of timescales. We've already created nuclear waste that will be problematic to mankind for hundreds of thousands of years - why not also devote some thought to developing positive things far in the future? If we want our society to endure beyond the scale of centuries, then shouldn't we be willing to invest maybe 5-10% of GDP in projects that will take several generations to bear fruit?
You just mentioned a fear about the death of the sun that is 5
Billion years off. Wouldn't it make much more sense, if we care about the future, to balance the budget, fix Social Security, or reduce chlorine emissions into the upper atmosphere (caused by the Shuttle's solid fuel boosters)? If we're going to concern ourselves with the death of the sun then perhaps we should also start spending public resources trying to find a solution to the heat death of the universe.
After all, in the game of life, the last species standing wins, right? Our purpose is to go for the duration, is it not? We, as a species aught to be like those people who are so concerned with cheating death that they spend their entire lives trying to live longer.
As far as cost goes jordanb, the argument I would use is: If we're going to allow alcohol and tobacco to be legal, then why not marijuana? i.e. If we're going to spend 1/4 to 1/2 of our GDP on the ability of our military to kill people, shouldn't we be willing to spend 1/20 to 1/10 of GDP on Space Exploration - manned or unmanned?
Well, in the first case, I'm against the obscene amounts of money wasted by this country on the military, and I'm against drug prohibition, so you're gonna have to come up with a different analogy.
Anyway, no, sorry, but "we're already wasting money on X, so there's no harm in wasting money on Y," just doesn't hold as a logical argument.
Over time, the money that nations waste on antagonistic infantile militarism, can be sublimated to cooperative global survival, as more is learned about the vastness beyond the blue sky that was all that we knew of the world until very recently.
Interestingly if the Nazis hadn't been so keen on coming up with foolproof ways to indiscriminately kill British civilians, there'd be no lift rockets and, consequently, no space exploration. (no, this isn’t a Godwin)
