Then maybe you shoulnd't use such absolute terms like "nothing has ever..."
As for linkage: Google. First hit. 'nuff said.
As for linkage: Google. First hit. 'nuff said.
Ares/Orion on the blocks?
- Thread starter Allyn Gibson
- Start date
BS, BS, Bee Ess. I don't see how housing the homeless and feeding the hungry will solve anything. There will always be people who are without, and they themselves have to be the agent of change in their lives. Arguing space exploration with homeless people is comparing apples to snow tires.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Ok, I looked it up. Now explain to me exactly how and why it was necessary to spend billions and billions of dollars on sending men to float around and take pretty pictures just to develp the product?
It could have been researched and developed FAR more cheaply via some other program.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
No, it's saying that when we have finite resources, we should spend them on things that will do the MOST to help people.
The space program has utterly failed to deliver practical benefits to mankind as promised. Other than what I have already agreed has merit (the asteroid watch and satellite launch programs), it is a complete waste of money.
(By the way, those hungry and homeless people who we help every year would more than likely disagree that we aren't "solving anything" by making sure they have safe affordable homes and food to eat.)
Because, dear duck.. that little metalized plastic pouch that plumpynut is sent round the world in IS A SPIN-OFF OF THE MANNED SPACE PROGRAM. Metalized plastic film was initially developed as a lightweight thermal insulator. If you look at old Apollo moon EVA pictures, you'll see the descent stage of the LM is covered with metalized plastic film.
That it found additional uses, such as creating a gas and light impervious food grade pouch is a happy coincidence. That coincidence allows plumpynut to be distributed in an inexpensive, easy to open, shelf stable, and single serving container to the starving children of the world.
So, the point being, those funds do find other beneficial uses, and technology developed for earth orbit and beyond can find it's way earthward to help the downtrodden... despite your opinion on the matter.
AG
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
COMPLETELY dodging the question. I didn't ask if it came FROM the space program. I asked for evidence that the space program was NECESSARY for it's development. Useful products have a habit of being invented. Explain to me why this packaging could not have been developed by some enterprising packaging company WITHOUT wasting billions on space exploration.
Well I'll probably be shunned out of the thread for this one, but I think the space program is important because, well, at heart humanity is a race of explorers. We want to understand whats around us, and the space program is the next step. As for solving problems, imagine the moon been turned into a massive farming community. A think that would go along way in solving the food shortage. Yes, it would take a lot of money now, but tomorrow would be different. That's the biggest problem with the budget. People want to make a quick buck now, instead of looking at the possible long term investment.
No, you're just not seeing the big picture. If this hadn't been developed to be the solution for a space related problem, then it may well never have been invented at all.
Unfortunately for PROOOOOOOOF, we'd have to have access to alternate timelines to peek and see what would happen if a bunch of neo-luddites stayed on their earth and managed to develop (despite themselves, mind you...) the same technologies as the space program has given us. Maybe some technological spin-off from underwater basketweaving will provide the means to do so.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Spare me the hyperbole...if it's useful, it will be invented one way or the other. Technological development did NOT start with the space program.
Hyperbole mixed with ridicule...not a counter-arguement. Aquatic technology IS a viable source of beneficial outcomes developed properly, including new habitable areas, access to additional mineral and other resources, and the production of new foodstuffs.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
That's an very shortsighted attitude.
Short term, the space programs have generated many spin off technologies. You say other companies could have done the necessary research and create these results. This is very unlikely. These companies favour applied research programs that will wield profit in the shortest possible time.
Basic research that may not make any profit at all - it is not their cup of tea.
Really? Then explain the dark ages. 1000 years with virtually no progress. "Useful products" will only be invented when time - and money - are spent on creating them.
Long term, expansion into space is essential for the continued prosperity - and even survival - of humanity.
Earth is an closed system, and its resources are diminishing. On the other hand, the population is rapidly growing. You can spend all the money in the world, as long as you are confined to only one planet, the quality of life will drop drastically medium and long term.
And then, on an Earth plagued by wars fought over the dwindling resources, you will realize that, in order to survive, you must expand into space to releive the population pressure, to have acces to its resources. But you will also discover that you don't have the tech to do that. You will see that you need 150 years, at least, to develop that kind of technology. And you will not have that kind of time anymore.
Develop underwater habitats and access submarine resources? It could work, for a while, at least.
But I think that, as soon as money are being spent on turning this dream into reality - on developing the technology and infrastructure for subaquatic colonization - , you'll object to the "waste", claiming that these money are being wasted, that they would be better spent on short term social programs.
Last edited:
The argument over "if it was only invented because of the space program" is obviously one without an easy answer. The only thing we can really think about is a space program boffin developed technology to go to the moon (etc) and then later on another boffin thought "gee whiz I can use this to do this as well!"
So it all depends on if the same idea could be thought up for two different tasks independantly, its possible, but in the end of the day it wasnt and its likely if private research developed product X completly they may have ended up charging more for it to the consumer as it will have cost them alot more money to develop.
So it all depends on if the same idea could be thought up for two different tasks independantly, its possible, but in the end of the day it wasnt and its likely if private research developed product X completly they may have ended up charging more for it to the consumer as it will have cost them alot more money to develop.
Since you're unable to tell me WHEN we will need it, this is basically special pleading. Sooner or later we're going to NEED to expand the human presence in space, for colonization, for development of resources, for finding new energy sources, etc. If you're going to bitch about something because it has no immediate benefit, then you might as well scrap most of the navy and sell the stealth bombers for scrap.
Fact of the matter is, space technology is a long-term investment. You pay a little now so you'll have it built up when you come to need it in the future. The more you pay in the short term the less you'll have to pay at crunch time, when your planet runs out of fossil fuels, when you can't mine enough uranium, when you still haven't worked the kinks out of this whole fusion thing and someone suddenly points out that, somewhere in the solar system, there's an entire planet that is literally covered with natural gas...
Right, because that's worked SO well for us over the past eight years.
Round up a bunch of homeless people, fit them for space suits, give them a five-year training course and send them to Mars to build a colony. If they survive, we send scientists. If they die, we name high schools after them.
The neat thing about opening new frontiers is that the desperate and the downtrodden usually head that way looking for something to do. The only thing we're lacking right now is the balls to allow the dreamers, the fools and the hopelessly optimistic put their own asses on the line to make it work.
Mainly because these things have to be MANUFACTURED in microgravity and shipped back to Earth. How do you propose we manufacture super pure crystals in space if you don't build FACTORIES in space? You might as well cut funding to a school just because none of its students have textbooks.
Duck, don't start pulling that revisionist history crap. Here's the point where you get to use another word from your debate team kit: "Argumentative"
Yes, you did. (See? Argumentative, ain't I? Good old plain contradiction. A grand thing, isn't it?)
Right up there. Look. That's what you said. Then I showed you an example.
You won't change your mind despite facts contrary to your statements.
At the risk of being too much tongue in cheek, I fear, dear duck that your behavior is more daffy than your name would imply.
AG
I don't see how the cost/resources required to get a person from the surface into Earth orbit could ever be low enough for emigration to relieve the planet's future overpopulation problem.
I'm fairly skeptical about the economics of importing large quantities of bulky materials like building materials or chemical fuels. If fusion ever becomes practical for anything other than an outrageously powerful weapon I understand there's plenty of the necessary hydrogen isotopes in the water already on the surface. Attempts to "import" significant quantities of water/ice would require the construction of a large quantity of thermal protective tanks (more on that later) or a rerun of that 1908 explosion over Siberia. Significant imports of heavy elements to supply atomic fission activities would present too much hazard following the eventual re-entry vehicle breakup.
I'm thinking it will be quite a while before it will be practical to build complex equipment in space from materials mined from the moon, asteroids or other astronomical bodies, including spacecraft/tank structures and the air tight layers of habits. The conversion of raw materials into useful metals, ceramics and/or polymers would require some complex and heavy processing equipment that initialy would have to be manufactured on the Earth's surface. There would be the additional problems developing equipment that could be operated without the water, air and gravity resources available on Earth.
Anything manufactured in orbit is going to have to be worthy of a high price to justify the cost of getting materials and the processing equipment to the manufacturing site. It's going to make new printer manufacturer's brand name ink tanks look cheap.
For what space might be good for:
If the safety and environmental concerns about beaming power to the surface from large orbiting solar arrays can be addressed there might be some applications. I'm thinking solar generation with surface installations and/or wind might be safer and more economical for most purposes though.
Research about the solar system's origins, thus the Earth's origins. Such knowledge might have applications that could benefit long term environmental management.
The ability to do something in the unlikely, but possible, event that an asteroid or comet becomes a threat to Earth.
In the very long term establishing human populations in environments independent of Earth and eventually our sun. That colonization won't be the result of large quantities of emigrants. The off world populations will be the descendants of a relatively small number of pioneers, probably the dissatisfied crews who will spend most of their lives obtaining orbital spacecraft propellants and life support expendables from asteroids or comets.
I'm fairly skeptical about the economics of importing large quantities of bulky materials like building materials or chemical fuels. If fusion ever becomes practical for anything other than an outrageously powerful weapon I understand there's plenty of the necessary hydrogen isotopes in the water already on the surface. Attempts to "import" significant quantities of water/ice would require the construction of a large quantity of thermal protective tanks (more on that later) or a rerun of that 1908 explosion over Siberia. Significant imports of heavy elements to supply atomic fission activities would present too much hazard following the eventual re-entry vehicle breakup.
I'm thinking it will be quite a while before it will be practical to build complex equipment in space from materials mined from the moon, asteroids or other astronomical bodies, including spacecraft/tank structures and the air tight layers of habits. The conversion of raw materials into useful metals, ceramics and/or polymers would require some complex and heavy processing equipment that initialy would have to be manufactured on the Earth's surface. There would be the additional problems developing equipment that could be operated without the water, air and gravity resources available on Earth.
Anything manufactured in orbit is going to have to be worthy of a high price to justify the cost of getting materials and the processing equipment to the manufacturing site. It's going to make new printer manufacturer's brand name ink tanks look cheap.
For what space might be good for:
If the safety and environmental concerns about beaming power to the surface from large orbiting solar arrays can be addressed there might be some applications. I'm thinking solar generation with surface installations and/or wind might be safer and more economical for most purposes though.
Research about the solar system's origins, thus the Earth's origins. Such knowledge might have applications that could benefit long term environmental management.
The ability to do something in the unlikely, but possible, event that an asteroid or comet becomes a threat to Earth.
In the very long term establishing human populations in environments independent of Earth and eventually our sun. That colonization won't be the result of large quantities of emigrants. The off world populations will be the descendants of a relatively small number of pioneers, probably the dissatisfied crews who will spend most of their lives obtaining orbital spacecraft propellants and life support expendables from asteroids or comets.
Similar threads
