They did, but this was probably due to their - or their ancestors’ - inherent differences with the old order (i.e. the reasons why they left), and not simply to living at a different lat/lon. Whereas space travelers would likely have more than average loyalty to the tenets of those who financed their voyage.
I guess I’m not sure why I should care about that? I mean, if it’s not my own bloodline, why should I care if humanity survives as a species? If it doesn’t, some other species will come along, won’t it? I’m being sincere here. Is it a pride thing? Kind of a “Go team!” mentality? I just really don’t get it.
it sounds like you’re saying you don’t care what happens after you’re dead. If so, why do you care if humanity goes to space or not? Everything that is going to happen to humanity after you’re dead is going to happen to humanity after you’re dead and you don’t care.
Right?
Or maybe you think gutting NASA now is going to make a meaningful difference to you before you die? If so, what? Let me know what gutting NASA is going to do for Liberal before he croaks.
Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure or technology yet, of course. And it never will be built if we just wait for it to happen like the anti-space people say to do.
Unlikely. Sentient tool users have evolved exactly once here, and there’s no reason to assume that a replacement will evolve for us. Even assuming that whatever kills us off leaves anything else alive to do so.
And why should you care for your “own bloodline” more than humans in general ?
Oh, I’ve got one: Eliminating war. I’ll take that over space travel. I’d be happy if we could eliminate hunger and poverty too.
My ideas would actually help billions of people. So yeah, I think those trump space travel.
No, actually, it’s not at all like saying that. It’s a tiny bit like saying, Hey, how are all those Antarctic colonies started back in the 1500’s doing now? Europe’s presence in the Antarctic is still not really up to the level we call colonization, and they have been at it for more than a hundred years. And they didn’t even have to bring their own air. How is the US colony in the Marianas Trench doing, eh? I mean we started out on our way there in the nineteen sixties, or so I hear.
Tris
We won’t colonize other planets until it becomes a necessity. It will be good to have the capability when it becomes a necessity though.
Exactly. Colonizing distant planets isn’t even on the agenda, as far as I know.
I can’t provide a cite, but I’ve gotten the idea over the years that the “technology dividends” the original space race were supposed to have provided have been largely mythical. Miniaturization, digitization, computerization all would have happened anyway because there are consumer and business reasons for developing the technology.
Sorry I’ve been so long responding – it’s been a bitch of a couple of days at work. I almost forgot I’d posted. Thanks for the patience.
It’s quite simple: We explore space because we want to. There are enough taxpayers who want NASA to use some of their money and do exciting things. Things that we can all take pride in. Isn’t that enough of a reason to do it?
Oh criminy. Antarctica again. There’s The Antarctic Treaty for starters. Earthlings want to preserve it, not colonize it and I don’t know anyone who’s interested in colonizing it anyway. I’ve read far more stories about people living in space than in Antarctica and while there are tourists in Antarctica I don’t see millionaires lining up ready to plop down $10 or $20 millions bucks just for the chance to fly around the edge of Antarctica, much less move there. Another thing is you have to ship in all your energy to Antarctica. No, you can’t build nuclear power stations. Space is bathed in limitless energy.
As for the Marianas Trench I think someone thought about colonizing it. Once. For Twenty minutes. Or something.
Have you ever seen the movie The Fifth Element? New York was built higher and higher and higher until people weren’t even sure what was down there at ground level? I think things are going to get like that. We’re not going to colonize Antarctica we’re going to build bigger and bigger and bigger apartment buildings in Manhattan until floor space there costs $10 million/square foot and space is going to seem pretty nice.
It’s getting late. I’m tired. That’s all I’ve got for now.
By the time of the Revolution most of the colonists were born in America (with Tom Paine being an exception.) Don’t you think space colonists would be self selecting? They might start off as loyal, but different conditions quickly drive a wedge between those on the scene and the pointy haired bosses on Earth who don’t get it.
I am a staunch supporter of the space program. It is a symbol of science and research, something that has always been important to the U.S. I hope science and R&D are always valued and perpetuated for future generations.
I haven’t read the entire thread, so I am not sure if anyone mentioned the extreme interest in moon rock as a source of Helium 3. China is already on its way to the moon. The U.S. and Europe are projected to follow.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/10/chinas-new-moon.html
http://www.spacenow.org.uk/index.cfm?code=theplanets&subcode=article&recID=793
Yeah, good luck with ending war.
Humanity will always be driven towards conflict, towards risk. Agressienes is the inevitable rult of a billion yers of evolution. Nothing we ever do will ever change that - and that’s a good thing. What makes us fight wars is what makes us human. The only thing I can think of that would end war would be something else toward which we could channel our aggresive instincts - somthing like space exploration. That was was the beauty of the 1960’s space race - it was a full scale, all-out war betwen nuclear superpowers, and only a handful of people died! If you want to end war, give us something else to fight.
As for poverty, money for the space program is money that goes back into the economy. It creates new jobs and encourages higher education. Giving people money is no way to end poverty - encouraging industry, especially high-tech industry, is.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe space exploration won’t help end war and poverty. So what? Ending war and poverty is a limited goal. Once you’ve beaten them, then what? We all live happily ever after? Yawn. That’s the thing about space: it’s infinite. Exploring it will keep us busy for the next million years, at least.
At whose expense? You might think it trivial to seize my wealth for your personal interests, but what if it were turned around on you? What if the Christian Right wanted you to pay for the building, maintenance, and expansion of prayer circles? And why not? The prayer circles are out there, just waiting for more voices.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Spin-offs. Few and far between. As reported in 1993 by space skeptic Bob Park, who writes a weekly news digest for the American Physical Society, an internal NASA study admitted, “To much of the public, NASA’s technology transfer reputation is based on some famous examples, including Velcro, Tang and Teflon. Contrary to popular belief, NASA created none of these. . . . There have not been very many technology transfer successes compared to the potential.” Park added, “In 1991, during a Senate debate on an amendment to slash funding for Space Station Freedom, Sen. [Howell] Heflin (D-AL) produced a NASA list of 74 ‘space spinoffs’–everything from synthetic teats for piglets to portable ice rinks. * challenged anyone to document that a single item on the list actually owed its existence to the space program. There were no takers.”
I think you misunderstood my point. My point was made to illustrate how space travel can improve everyday human life. Not that it is the only way to get these improvements. Who knows what other kinds of improvements might be seen from further exploring space. And I don’t think there is any reason to assume that there will be none.
Yes, directly funding research here on Earth is a more efficient way of providing some of these benefits. But you have to consider the benefits it provides to the individual as well. One of these is dreams. Yes, it’s rather abstract. But saying that someone should not have the opportunity to pursue their dreams is about as useful as saying that grocery stores shouldn’t carry mushrooms because I don’t like them. I see it as a mild form of altruism. Item A does not provide any direct benefit to me, but it does to person B. I will help person B reach item A, and I hope that in the future they will help me reach item B.
We keep hearing about “exploring space.” Space is mostly just that: empty space. The other stars are dreadfully far away and far apart. Manned missions to any of them are still squarely in the realm of science fiction. Robotic missions to any of them would involve a time frame measured in centuries. What, then, do you plan to explore?
If you’re talking about exploration within our own solar system, it can be handled adequately with probes, telescopes, and other unmanned technology.
Oh, and about the Chinese and their moon shot? Should I start worrying that they will seize the “high ground” the way we worried about the Soviets when I was a kid?
The whole ‘space program spinoff’ is a crock-the transistor and the integrated circuit were developed without the space program. NASA itself is hugely inefficient and a waste of money. Take the commercialization of space (chiefly satellite communication)-this is mostly done by private industry, and is much more cost effective than NASA’s bloated procedures. Take the ISS-its an example of NASA at its worst-I doubt we will see ANY payoff for the >$165 billion spent on that thing. Sure, we have lots of experiments going on-but damn little payoff. I am skeptical about a :moon Colony"-what would it return? We have TONS of data from the Mars probes-which isn’t being analyzed because there are no funds to do so. Let’s work with what we have for a change. Let the Chinese go to the moon-we funded it!
I was told that putting a man on the moon cost
the american taxpayer the equivalent of one packet of cigarettes each.
Spend the money on solving the Earths problems you say?
We’ve spent probably hundreds of billions on helping Africas problems without any viable result whatsoever.
Apart from anything else we’d need some sort of World Government to even make a start on the Earths problems.
Population of one and a half billion people in the 19c I beleive,by the end of the next century six and a half billion.
How many in the next few decades?
Half the world attempting to solve global warming,the other half not bothering.
A bit like part of a boat crew busy bailing out their sinking vessel while the rest of the crew carry on boring holes in the keel.
But even if a miracle happened and we DID sort out the planets problems we will sooner or later run out of resources no matter how diligently we reycle what we actually still have.
I suspect that it will be the "sooner "option rather then the other one.
Mind you when the asteroid/comet on the intercepting orbit turns up(which is apparently a certainty not a maybe)and we have’nt the deep space vehicles,engineering ,technology and logistics ALREADY IN PLACE then all the Earths and with it,Humanities problems will be gone once and for all.
Oh wow. Science and religion are the same now.
Sounds like you just don’t like paying taxes, and you want to choose what your taxes get spent on. I’d like a pony.
This seizure of wealth already had been “turned around on us.” Each and every one of us is paying taxes and watching those funds get spent on things no one bothered to ask us permission for. I know I was never asked if I wanted to spend anywhere from $1-2 trillion dollars on Iraq.
Imagine if we spent $1 trillion dollars reducing launch costs, building a space-based manufacturing capability, and placing an array of solar power satellites in orbit.