3rd August 2010, 8:40 AM
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.
If you're placing mundane matters before space exploration, then it'll never happen again. Try as your bleedin- heart liberals want, you'll never solve all the world's problems. And even if you could, it's not the job of the US government. World food aid, etc., should be directed by the UN. The US ought to be leading the way in cutting-edge frontiers as it always has, as in space. If you're going to get all your ducks in a row, you'll be spending a while, because there'll always be more ducks coming and coming, looking for government money.
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.
Not immediately, which is why the technology has to be advanced and refined to the point where it will be cheaper to move things through space.
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.
Nobody wants to see another Challenger or Colombia, but more people will die in space. It is inevitable. Better safety regulations and all that are great, we can all agree on that. But fundamentally, there will be risk. The astronauts know that. Just like soldiers fighting abroad know that. They have risky jobs. But if they are willing to do them, then let them do them.
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 spill clean-up is the responsibility of BP. This sounds a lot like your ducks-lined-up rebuke, so I'll leave it at that.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
Just the same as when we landed on the moon, it was on behalf of humanity; then, as now, there are starving people in Africa. You would have it, apparently, that we have no moral right, as a sovereign nation and the world's only super power, to explore space as long as there are hungry people. There will always be hungry people. You want to see the deficit really grow? Try air-shipping 500 million happy meals to Africa every day for five centuries. The UN, and not the US, should help Africa. Some things are worth doing. And at any rate, we could do both if we wanted to. Our national income is vast enough that we could support foreign countries and advance space exploration. Space exploration would not break the federal budget by any means.
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.
They probably wouldn't have. There you go making this a partisan argument. It is not. Don't drag politics into this. And if it's not a priority now, it might as well never be one. As I said, you bleeding hearts will ALWAYS find a cause that YOU care about more. Feeding orphaned puppies, or planting trees in Quebec, or some damn fool feel-good thing.
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.
Here we have an irreconciliable difference. It is worth it. Your short-sightedness bars you from seeing it fully developed. You think it'd be "oh we're at Mars, not, la-dee-da, no big deal." But the idea must be developed. Mars would only be an early phase of an ever-growing, ever-rewarding reach out across space. There's a reason why 2001: A Space Odyssey is called '2001'. Because experts like Arthur C. Clarke foresaw that that was where we ought to have been by that time. All that time, lost.
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.
That's their decision, not yours. By contrast, are the lives of soldiers abroad worth anything less to you? One could argue that they're dying in droves, and for no tangible gain. Who knows, this could be another Vietnam. But they're dying in numbers that would render those of space exploration totally meaningless. Thousands and thousands. They die, for what I believe is something far less real than the challenge of space. Indeed, who knows whether or not anyone would even die on the way to Mars. Nobody died on the way to the moon (in the testing phases, yes, but not actually going there and back.) The hypothetical risk of someone maybe dying is enough to keep humanty forever grounded to the Earth in your eyes?
If you're placing mundane matters before space exploration, then it'll never happen again. Try as your bleedin- heart liberals want, you'll never solve all the world's problems. And even if you could, it's not the job of the US government. World food aid, etc., should be directed by the UN. The US ought to be leading the way in cutting-edge frontiers as it always has, as in space. If you're going to get all your ducks in a row, you'll be spending a while, because there'll always be more ducks coming and coming, looking for government money.
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.
Not immediately, which is why the technology has to be advanced and refined to the point where it will be cheaper to move things through space.
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.
Nobody wants to see another Challenger or Colombia, but more people will die in space. It is inevitable. Better safety regulations and all that are great, we can all agree on that. But fundamentally, there will be risk. The astronauts know that. Just like soldiers fighting abroad know that. They have risky jobs. But if they are willing to do them, then let them do them.
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 spill clean-up is the responsibility of BP. This sounds a lot like your ducks-lined-up rebuke, so I'll leave it at that.
So I guess when you said "humanity" you meant "American" when you speak of advancing civilization.
Just the same as when we landed on the moon, it was on behalf of humanity; then, as now, there are starving people in Africa. You would have it, apparently, that we have no moral right, as a sovereign nation and the world's only super power, to explore space as long as there are hungry people. There will always be hungry people. You want to see the deficit really grow? Try air-shipping 500 million happy meals to Africa every day for five centuries. The UN, and not the US, should help Africa. Some things are worth doing. And at any rate, we could do both if we wanted to. Our national income is vast enough that we could support foreign countries and advance space exploration. Space exploration would not break the federal budget by any means.
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.
They probably wouldn't have. There you go making this a partisan argument. It is not. Don't drag politics into this. And if it's not a priority now, it might as well never be one. As I said, you bleeding hearts will ALWAYS find a cause that YOU care about more. Feeding orphaned puppies, or planting trees in Quebec, or some damn fool feel-good thing.
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.
Here we have an irreconciliable difference. It is worth it. Your short-sightedness bars you from seeing it fully developed. You think it'd be "oh we're at Mars, not, la-dee-da, no big deal." But the idea must be developed. Mars would only be an early phase of an ever-growing, ever-rewarding reach out across space. There's a reason why 2001: A Space Odyssey is called '2001'. Because experts like Arthur C. Clarke foresaw that that was where we ought to have been by that time. All that time, lost.
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.
That's their decision, not yours. By contrast, are the lives of soldiers abroad worth anything less to you? One could argue that they're dying in droves, and for no tangible gain. Who knows, this could be another Vietnam. But they're dying in numbers that would render those of space exploration totally meaningless. Thousands and thousands. They die, for what I believe is something far less real than the challenge of space. Indeed, who knows whether or not anyone would even die on the way to Mars. Nobody died on the way to the moon (in the testing phases, yes, but not actually going there and back.) The hypothetical risk of someone maybe dying is enough to keep humanty forever grounded to the Earth in your eyes?
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST