 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:33
|
|
quote:
How has this little trip to Mars helped me |
The whole point is to do lots of expensive and off stuff and hope you hit gold.
You can spend money on nothing and more nothing and then bam, you have a Steam Engine, or the Internet and the world has changed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bfg9000
Well, since you're fond of making wild assumptions about the usage of federal tax money without Bush's guidance, |
Yeah, cuz the Democrats have sure spent so much money on the poor.  When has the United States ever had any kind of social democratic pretentions? The only time the U.S. came close, the so-called War on Poverty, it got derailed, not by the space program, but the WAR ON VIETNAM!
quote:
The money that would have been available if NASA wasnt using it would go a long way towards building a social safety net. |
If it wasn't being used for NASA, it would be used, most likely, for pork-barrel projects. It certainly wouldn't be used for helping the poor. That or it would be gven to the rich as a tax cut. You'd be better off *****ing about the billion dollars a day we spend in Iraq.
quote:
No I didnt spend my tax cut. I'm middle class - I didnt get one. |
You got one, just not much of one.
You always act like it's this either or propoistion. Either we explore space or we feed the poor. NASA gets a pittance. Half the Federal budget is taken up paying for past and future wars (some of which goes to NASA). Then there's all the money spent on corporate welfare. If you kvetched abuot the moeny we spend on everything else, maybe you'd at least be logically consistent when it comes to NASA's budget. As it is, you only trot out this argument for NASA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
I would settle for them building things that actually work. How much money was spent by the US, the UK and the Japanese to send those probes to Mars and what new information have we gotten from. |
what an inane objection.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
It almost certainly makes sense to spend a certain amount of money on pure science. Within that it makes sense to spend a certain amount on space exploration and planetary science. Arguing for zero space exploration until every domestic social problem is solved is probably not a good idea - nonetheless there IS a real opportunity cost to space exploration - whether you want to use the money for social programs, in Iraq, or to return to the taxpayers. In that sense, NASA must show a good return in science for the money.
The ISS as currently configured almost certainly does not meet any reasonableness test. Hubble, and most earth orbit research sats certainly do. I suspect the comet probes, solar probes, and deep interplanetary probes, which dont have the costs associated with landing, etc do as well.
The real questions get to landing manned or unmanned on the moon and Mars. I suspect a very good case could be made that a man mission to Mars within the next 15 to 20 years doesnt make a lot of sense. The unmanned missions looked promising - but it must be admitted that the cost benefit ratio is looking pretty poor - I think someone is soon going to have to figure out WHY Mars landing missions are so difficulty prone, before we look to invest more in that direction. Besides, if youre commited to space science, I suspect there are many other space projects other than Mars landings that need funding as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
It almost certainly makes sense to spend a certain amount of money on pure science. Within that it makes sense to spend a certain amount on space exploration and planetary science. Arguing for zero space exploration until every domestic social problem is solved is probably not a good idea - nonetheless there IS a real opportunity cost to space exploration - whether you want to use the money for social programs, in Iraq, or to return to the taxpayers. In that sense, NASA must show a good return in science for the money.
The ISS as currently configured almost certainly does not meet any reasonableness test. Hubble, and most earth orbit research sats certainly do. I suspect the comet probes, solar probes, and deep interplanetary probes, which dont have the costs associated with landing, etc do as well.
The real questions get to landing manned or unmanned on the moon and Mars. I suspect a very good case could be made that a man mission to Mars within the next 15 to 20 years doesnt make a lot of sense. The unmanned missions looked promising - but it must be admitted that the cost benefit ratio is looking pretty poor - I think someone is soon going to have to figure out WHY Mars landing missions are so difficulty prone, before we look to invest more in that direction. Besides, if youre commited to space science, I suspect there are many other space projects other than Mars landings that need funding as well. |
Exactly 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2004 01:44
Or those pens that can write upside down! How dare you ask what has NASA done for you
|