26th June 2010, 10:45 AM
So I'll do it without respect.
Fair enough.
I cannot see this logic. If anything, we should have done it decades ago. The technology has been feasible for a long time... the idea was brought up during the Nixon administration, but he like you saw more down-to-earth (pun intended) priorities as being more important.
They are more important. To my knowledge, Mars nor the galaxy is going anywhere. I'm of the mind to get your ducks in a row before crossing the street.
No, Eden. Not twenty years. Try 1.5 years, at most... optimistically, 8 months round trip.
I admit my error and rescind that part of my post. Still, logistically, that's a huge undertaking with great risk for relatively little reward. Lets assume there are vast riches on Mars. The amount of money we would spend getting those resources back to us would almost certainly offset what we may bring back, if it successfully makes both trips. The track record NASA has for missions to Mars is abysmal. I'd like to see some more stable technology before we start sending some of the best humanity has to offer on a year-long journey that could end up a smoking crater on Mars or worse, just as about 2/3 of their unmanned probes have. The irony is, finding such riches on Mars would likely be the thing that spurs the creation of the such technology I would like to see. Nothing advanced progress like greed.
The debt I can admit as a valid point... but... what does the oil spill have to do with not going to Mars? We can't go to Mars as long as there is oil in the ocean? I don't get it.
Again, the subject of getting your priorities at home straight first. The spill is one of the worst ecological disasters in history, I think it's worth our time to, yunno, stop it before it gets worse.
The United States is not responsible for feeding the world's poor. Their respective governments are. Their failure to take care of their own is not a reason for us not to be able to land men on Mars.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
First of all, it wouldn't be hundreds of billions. But you're probably right... if he said that. It wouldn't be a popular idea amongst nay-sayers like you. But he wouldn't need to say that. NASA already has some funding going into the development of similar projects. He would have to raise additional funding, on the scale of tens of billions. This pricetag could be, if an international venture, split across the globe. Yet---it'd take a brave president with long-sightedness, resilience, tenacity... a president we don't have.
McCain wouldn't have done it either, nor did Bush, nor likely would Kerry or Gore. Because it's not a priority in the face of the very real issues here on Earth.
So does going to Afghanistan and risking your life everyday... June '10 is setting records for casualties. It certainly entails a higher risk of mortality than space exploration. If we MUST go there, and brave risks, then space too is an acceptable risk. The benefits outweight the risks.
Again you speak of benefits. There is no tangible benefit. There is the ability to say "we went there"...and that's it. That's all well and good but there has to be more. That's simply not enough.
Make it right? Are you conjecturing that risking your life for space exploration is morally wrong? Wtf? Firstly, everyone has a unique moral compass...and if risking one's life to voyage to Mars is morally "wrong" to you... yours is askew.
The people who go up into space are easily the best specimens of humanity that could grace the Earth. I'd rather not see them turned to ash, no.
Fair enough.
I cannot see this logic. If anything, we should have done it decades ago. The technology has been feasible for a long time... the idea was brought up during the Nixon administration, but he like you saw more down-to-earth (pun intended) priorities as being more important.
They are more important. To my knowledge, Mars nor the galaxy is going anywhere. I'm of the mind to get your ducks in a row before crossing the street.
No, Eden. Not twenty years. Try 1.5 years, at most... optimistically, 8 months round trip.
I admit my error and rescind that part of my post. Still, logistically, that's a huge undertaking with great risk for relatively little reward. Lets assume there are vast riches on Mars. The amount of money we would spend getting those resources back to us would almost certainly offset what we may bring back, if it successfully makes both trips. The track record NASA has for missions to Mars is abysmal. I'd like to see some more stable technology before we start sending some of the best humanity has to offer on a year-long journey that could end up a smoking crater on Mars or worse, just as about 2/3 of their unmanned probes have. The irony is, finding such riches on Mars would likely be the thing that spurs the creation of the such technology I would like to see. Nothing advanced progress like greed.
The debt I can admit as a valid point... but... what does the oil spill have to do with not going to Mars? We can't go to Mars as long as there is oil in the ocean? I don't get it.
Again, the subject of getting your priorities at home straight first. The spill is one of the worst ecological disasters in history, I think it's worth our time to, yunno, stop it before it gets worse.
The United States is not responsible for feeding the world's poor. Their respective governments are. Their failure to take care of their own is not a reason for us not to be able to land men on Mars.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
First of all, it wouldn't be hundreds of billions. But you're probably right... if he said that. It wouldn't be a popular idea amongst nay-sayers like you. But he wouldn't need to say that. NASA already has some funding going into the development of similar projects. He would have to raise additional funding, on the scale of tens of billions. This pricetag could be, if an international venture, split across the globe. Yet---it'd take a brave president with long-sightedness, resilience, tenacity... a president we don't have.
McCain wouldn't have done it either, nor did Bush, nor likely would Kerry or Gore. Because it's not a priority in the face of the very real issues here on Earth.
So does going to Afghanistan and risking your life everyday... June '10 is setting records for casualties. It certainly entails a higher risk of mortality than space exploration. If we MUST go there, and brave risks, then space too is an acceptable risk. The benefits outweight the risks.
Again you speak of benefits. There is no tangible benefit. There is the ability to say "we went there"...and that's it. That's all well and good but there has to be more. That's simply not enough.
Make it right? Are you conjecturing that risking your life for space exploration is morally wrong? Wtf? Firstly, everyone has a unique moral compass...and if risking one's life to voyage to Mars is morally "wrong" to you... yours is askew.
The people who go up into space are easily the best specimens of humanity that could grace the Earth. I'd rather not see them turned to ash, no.
The Earthworker Race has ended. Everybody wins.