You’re kind of putting these things into completely separate bins when in fact they are more a case of overlapping Venn diagrams. A huge part of physics is astronomy.
Short term? Small.
Long term? Everything. If we don’t spread humanity off the planet and out to the stars, it won’t last terribly long: too many eggs in one basket; too easy to break the basket.
If we manage to infect other stars with humanity, odds are probably good that it’ll be a very long-lasting infection. There are some big assumptions there (over and above the ability to colonize another start system):
- there are plenty of star systems where humans could live
- we can effectively reach more than one, and thrive well enough and long enough, on average, on each, to spawn more than one further colonization from each.
More realistically, though, for here and now (back to short term, that is): We don’t do pure research expecting a direct payback. We often do get a number of direct paybacks, but even when we don’t, that’s not a reason to consider pure research a failure.
Everything we learn about everything we study informs who we are as humans. I prefer to live in a world where we’re fascinated by the questions as much as the answers. I’d hate to live in a world where we see the stars up there but nobody really cares what it all means. In that sense, astronomy and theoretical math and loads of other pure sciences are important to me.
Venus provides an example of a planet with high concentrations of CO2. Though Mercury is closer to the sun, surface temperatures on Venus are actually hotter.
Does astronomy aid economic growth and development? Perhaps, but to me that’s reversing things. We don’t explore the universe to grow the economy faster. We grow the economy faster so that we can explore the universe. It’s an intrinsic good, IMHO.
The applicability of most astronomy to any sort of manned colonization of other planets is pretty small. If that was really the goal, we’d probably be a lot better off putting the money into terrestrial engineering applications then telescopes and rovers and computer models of galaxy formation.
This, I think, is the real reason. People find it intrinsically valuable. We like living in a society that’s puts some resources towards figuring out what those remote specs of light are, even if we already know that they’re too far away to have any actual effect on us.
IMHO more important than astrology
That is a very short sighted view. Our ability to exploit stuff to our advantage is enhanced by our understanding of the nature of that stuff.
Not really. Brazil is not very important to me. It’s very far away, and your nuts are hard to open.
Quantum mechanics was discovered decades before the transistor was invented.
Steam power was discovered by Hero of Alexandria two thousand years before James Watt invented a practical steam engine.
It may take a while, but knowledge eventually gets used. And you must have it, before you can use it.
Nedless to say… yes, it is. However, many people find it more important than astronomy. When I tell people I like to study the solar system, they always ask me if I can predict the future. It gets on my nerves
Not necessarily. Knowing that someone else is advancing the state of internet protocols, improving knowlege of virology and vaccines, or improving earth surveillance of climate and agricultural systems allows advances that proliferate into everyday life, even for those who do not receive the initial benefits. Similiarly, exploration of interplanetary space, while being the primary domain of scientists, explorers, and space enthusiasts, ultimately offers both the incredible material riches of space (readily available mineral and elemental resources which dwarf anything available on Earth without the liability of having to protect or remediate the environmental effects) and the ability to process such materials into manufactured states without the attendant environmental pollution, not to mention direct access to more raw energy than humanity could conceivably put to use in any foreseeable future. The “footprints and flags” exploration missions which fuel the imaginations of space enthusiasts are indeed fanciful and frivolous, but the technologies and infrastructure which could be developed in pursuit of such ambitions could very well serve all of humanity in ways we can scarcely even imagine today.
Astronomy and its associated arts (celestial navigation, understanding the composition and dynamics of planets and other celestial bodies, et cetera) is crucial to the ultimate advancement and survivial of our successors. This doesn’t mean we should ignore taking care of the entire world population today, but these two aims are scarcely in conflict, and in fact advancing one may improve the other (in either direction). Realistically, we could assure that the entire world population is provided with adequate nutrition, potable water, and basic medical services, and pursue a far more vigorous effort in space exploration and resource utilization with plenty left over for leisure and entertainment. We’d just have to stop wasting time, labor, and product on futile and pointless idiological conflicts into which a distressing amount of national products are funnelled to the benefit of a very few.
Stranger
If this forum had a ‘like’ button I’d certainly give you one
Hah. Utility. In this context, with the scope of impact that astrophysics potentially yields, is practically indefineable (and meaningless).
(Since 1958, NASA has spent a cumulative of 500 Trillion nominal dollars - not adjusted for inflation).
:rolleyes:
In astronomical baseball terms, you’re not even in the same galactic supercluster as the ballpark.
I have no idea what you’re talking about
Sure we can. We can predict eclipses and locations of planets, for example.
I think the point was that NASA hasn’t been a cash cow for the US or the world. It wasn’t intended to be, and it wasn’t. Of course, there’s a lot of astronomy outside NASA, and probably even less measurable spinoff. I doubt anyone thinks that the payoffs from astronomy are likely to revolutionize the economy.
On the other hand, who knows what practical benefits we might get when we finally figure out what dark energy is? That’s not something we’d be likely to be investigating were it not for astronomy.
But the bottom line is that it’s not about utility, it’s about quality of life.
Ed Stone was interviewed by Stephen Colbert some months ago. He was talking about the fact Voyager 1 entered interstellar space etc. In about 3/4 of this video, Stephen says “This sounds impressive, but how is this going to help us in any way” or something. He didn’t mean to be offensive at all (well, he is a comedian, isn’t he). Ed Stone answered that it’s because it is the first step for a future exploration of other planets and solar systems etc etc.
This is just an example. Such amazing feat like sending a spacecraft among the stars is, unfortunately, not really useful and people question if money should be spent on space exploration.
What do you guys think?
Religion helps people feel like they belong to something that’s much bigger than themselves.
Astronomy provides this feeling for those of us who aren’t into religion.
I mean, I see something like this and suddenly everything around me seems a bit less important. I’m able to snap out of it so I can tend to matters. But sometimes I need to be humbled.
I think that abstract and non-applied science has historically provided practial benefits where no one even suspected to look. From discrete mathematics–which underpins all of modern computing–and Maxwell’s groundbreaking research on electromagnetism–giving us all manner of telecommunications and manufacturing abilities–to high energy physics–which gives us imaging and treatment options that were the stuff of science fiction circa 1950–abstract and seemingly “useless” research has often rendered substantial material benefits. Certainly, no one made a fortune from the Voyager program. On the other hand, the cost of the program was a pittance compared to the information and knowledge that was gained, it employed a vast number of scientists and engineers in a non-military program the information from which was shared freely with the world, and it provided us with the practical ability to assess and improve the state of the art in interplanetary probes, to the point that even probes being built today are heavily influenced by the successful design of Voyager (which itself was an improved Mariner bus).
If we are “wasting” our money on space exploration which yields these kinds of benefits, versus on pork barrel projects and ineffectual and unfocused “charity” that primarily benefits overpaid charitable foundations rather than the ostensible demographic they are supposedly working to benefit, we’re still better off just for sustaining the technical ability to make space resources more accessible. And we’re certainly better off squandering money on abstract research than real ideological conflicts and vacuous “War on _____” calculated to give politicians a non-contraversial platform plank rather than accomlish anything useful.
Stranger
I’ve loved astronomy since third grade, when we made papier-maché models of the planets and hung them from the room’s ceiling. Jupiter was made from a huge beach ball, and hung right over my head. Of course it came down on me one day. Good thing papier-maché isn’t very heavy.
I think if I had gone into one of the sciences, it would have been astronomy.
And BTW, when I was in third grade, the only other planets with moons were Mars (2), Jupiter (12) and Saturn (9, plus 3 rings). And Pluto was a planet. And the only other galaxies were the Magellanic Clouds and Andromeda.