Is Religion Slowing Down Space Exploration?

JonClarke · Jul 27, 2006

Jon, of course it can be broken down in such simplistic terms. The problem is simplistic analysis leads to simplistic answers which are attractive, but nearly always wrong. Because they are simplistic and wrong they don't promote understanding, rather the entrenching of stereotypical mind sets. Maybe things are different in Oz.... I suspect on a great many issues people are far less polarised in Oz than the are in the US, something for which I am profoundly thankful. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ... but in the US there is indeed a very large number of people who use religion to attack science and equate it with evil. Again, I would see this description as too simple. I know of very few US reilgious people (either personally or from their communications) who would have this blanket position. They may disagree with particular scientific theories (generally wrongly in my view), they may disagree with some applications of technology (sometimes rightly, in my view). But very few oppose science wholesale. So you would need to single out specific individuals or groups that are worthy of this label. It cuts both ways as well. The scientific culture as a whole does not (and cannot) say that religious beliefs are evil, not matter what the opinions of specific scientists may be (Richard Dawkins comes to mind). That's not a knock on religion in general because as you said the interaction between religious beliefs and science is complex and not all who claim to be religious are in denial of science. Unfortunately, a good many are and it's a fair analysis to say that this anti-science stance is not good for space exploration. I think this is a claim that should be tested. Certainly a considerable number of scientists (inlcuding astronomers) and technologists (including astronauts) have strong religious beliefs. Are you aware of any opinon polls that have explored this is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Swampcat · Jul 27, 2006

Jon, I have to leave on a road trip shortly so I don't really have the time right now to respond as thoroughly as I would like to your post. However, here are a few comments... "The problem is simplistic analysis leads to simplistic answers which are attractive, but nearly always wrong. Because they are simplistic and wrong they don't promote understanding, rather the entrenching of stereotypical mind sets." I agree. My point was that some people (more than you appear to want to acknowledge) are only interested in the simplistic analysis and answers. To them, life is not at all complex. God takes care of everything and that's all they need to know. It doesn't take a lot of analysis if that's your view of reality. "I suspect on a great many issues people are far less polarised in Oz than the are in the US, something for which I am profoundly thankful." Your suspicions are likely correct <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. "Again, I would see this description as too simple. I know of very few US reilgious people (either personally or from their communications) who would have this blanket position. They may disagree with particular scientific theories (generally wrongly in my view), they may disagree with some applications of technology (sometimes rightly, in my view). But very few oppose science wholesale. So you would need to single out specific individuals or groups that are worthy of this label. It cuts both ways as well. The scientific culture as a whole does not (and cannot) say that religious beliefs are evil, not matter what the opinions of specific scientists may be (Richard Dawkins comes to mind)." Obviously, we run in different crowds <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. I'm not, in general, referring to scientists or other well-educated people. I'm talking about the masses, those <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

JonClarke · Jul 27, 2006

I agree completely about people want simplistic answers to just about everything! Your comment about running in different crowds is quite true. That is why we have to be careful about the generality of ancedotal evidence such as ours. Not that we are wrong about the people we associate with necessarily, but how representative they are of the population as a whole. For example, most of the church people I know are interested in space. I have been been asked on quite a few occasions to talk about them. Any objection to space exploration are not on a priori religious grounds, but the quite reasonable question as to whether it is the best use that the money can be put. I don't think properly designed a poll would be a waste of time. If space advocates want to convince the public we first of all have to understand what the public thinks and why and how that breaks down according to different parameters. Take care on your trip. Early starts are a real pain. Cheers Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

qso1 · Jul 27, 2006

toothFerry: To find out why people aren't interested in space you first have to find out why the people that are interested in space are interested. Me: Curiosity more than anything else IMO. toothFerry: Why do we want to send rockets away from Earth and explore the unknown, or don't we already know what's out there? Me: Humanities quest for knowledge, and we barely scratched the surface on what we do know. toothFerry: And why do we care what's out there? Me: Most folks don't care. For those who do, they have their reasons and there is room for both the people who don't care and those who do. The reasons range from the curiosity I pointed out in a general sense to wanting to know if there are other beings out there like us. toothFerry: What's with prying into the very beginnings of the universe with great telescopes all about? ..and why split atoms with particle collider? Me: Its a way of trying to understand the nature of nature ranging from the subatomic to the galactic. We won't ever have answers to questions like "Is there a God" but we might have a better understanding of the physical makeup of the Universe which don't mean diddly to the man in the street but it means something to someone. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a large enough percentage of people doing it. toothferry: What are we trying to find out? We are trying to prove something or discover something? And why do we need those facts... Me: Again, humanities curiosity and thirst for knowledge. toothferry: or isn't faith in what we already know good enough for us? Me: Science is not about faith and when done as it is supposed to be, does not try to answer questions of faith. When a scientific discovery is made but part of it is still theoretical, we can't just stop there and have faith that the theory is accurate. We study, research, and study as new tools come <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jul 27, 2006

You said it. I been out of high school for a long time but even so, I know space wasn't that popular even when I was in so I can only imagine. And you have verified some of what I imagined. On shows like Discovery channel, they have done a decent job of space presentations but again, it is kind of a barometer on peoples interest as a whole. Shows get sponsored and aired based on their audience draw potential. There are numerous shows about WWII. I wouldn't be suprised to see a three part mini series about Hitlers dog and its secret wartime contributions. Heres a good one. The Gemini program. I have only seen two shows that had much to do with Gemini and one was a sixties sitcom. "I Dream Of Genie" and the Tom Hanks HBO special "From The Earth To The Moon". There may be a few I missed and if so, someone please post. If not, shows you how much coverage Gemini got. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jul 27, 2006

I also wanted to point out that many of the people involved in human spaceflight are religious which sort of dampens the idea that religion is slowing down space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Swampcat · Jul 28, 2006

Jon, first let me say that I am not implying that all persons of faith are anti-science or anti-space exploration as I don't believe that to be the case. I am arguing strictly from my own personal experience from discussions I have had with many people in my work environment. IMO, and IMO only, there are a sufficient number of people with this mindset to be of concern to science. If there were not, there would be little problem with the likes of Creationists and their ilk. Also, keep in mind that I live in an area that is well known as a center for conservative Christians. Pat Robertson's HQ is less than a mile from my home. That said... "I would disagree [with conflict between faith and reason]. They are both necessary to the other. All reasoned positions must start with assumptions that have supported from outside the reasoning. Everyone works from an informed belief (i.e. faith) and reason out the implications of that faith." I am using faith in the context of religion, which is the subject of this thread. Faith is a matter of beliefs and feelings. Reason is a matter of thinking and making judgements based on evidence. I agree that they are both necessary. A thoughtful person might have a feeling (based on an informed belief) and rationalize it. If the process of rationalization reveals flaws in the belief, a thoughtful, rational person might be wise to adjust their belief. "Whether they are cporrectly informed and the actions correctly reasoned are another issues and a whole separate topic for discussion, and probably not one relevant here." Ah, but they are indeed most relevant. The average church-goer is told to have faith and believe, not to think -- not to reason things out. If he is not correctly informed (or purposefully misinformed) then how might reason (which he is discouraged from using) be of any use in deciding truth, particular <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

Swampcat · Jul 28, 2006

"You have introduced another very loaded term. "Fundamentalist" means very different things to different people and in different contexts. In fact the term is so misused by the media, popular commentators, and others that I suggest it should be avoided all together (especially as it is a term of abuse), or at least only used with careful definition. For example, Christian fundamentalism is a very different to Islamic funamentalism, and in turn they differ from Hindu fundamenatlism. Indeed, if you use Christian fundamentalism as the normative definition neither Islam nor Hinduism have funadmentalist branches. Even Christian fundamentalism has changed markedly over the last century or so. For example most people would associate Christian funadmentalism with a rejection of organic evolution and an old earth. However in the period 1890-1910 several leading Americam fundamentalists (i.e. those who contributed to the magazine "The Fundamentals") either embraced organic evolution or saw basic problem with it." Jon, too much thinking, mate <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. Everybody knows what is meant by "fundamentalism." OK, maybe I'm being parochial here and thinking like an American. Yes, for the sake of argument, I could pick out the differences between Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, etc., but what's the point? Does an Islamic Fundamentalist have a similar attitude towards science as a Christian Fundamentalist? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that neither group supports science as much as, say, non-fundamentalist Chrisitanity and Islam. And it doesn't matter that "several leading fundamentalists" did whatever. I don't doubt that a few of any group will be different from the norm. It doesn't invalidate my point. As I said, I live in an area that is infested with fundamentalists and even they use the term. "Historically churches did not bankroll expl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

JonClarke · Jul 29, 2006

Jon, first let me say that I am not implying that all persons of faith are anti-science or anti-space exploration as I don't believe that to be the case. I am arguing strictly from my own personal experience from discussions I have had with many people in my work environment. IMO, and IMO only, there are a sufficient number of people with this mindset to be of concern to science. If there were not, there would be little problem with the likes of Creationists and their ilk. Also, keep in mind that I live in an area that is well known as a center for conservative Christians. Pat Robertson's HQ is less than a mile from my home. This is what makes your experience so valuable, in that it provides specific informatrion of attitudes of a particular subset of the population. Whether this can then be extrapolated to Christains as a whole, or religious people in general, is a different kettle of fish. Most of the chruch goers I know who shudder to think that Pat Robertson's attitudes might be considered typical, let alone normative <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />! So moving from the specifics (which I think it would be most useful to discuss) to the generalities 9which may be somewhat off topic).... I am using faith in the context of religion, which is the subject of this thread. Faith is a matter of beliefs and feelings. Reason is a matter of thinking and making judgements based on evidence. I agree that they are both necessary. A thoughtful person might have a feeling (based on an informed belief) and rationalize it. If the process of rationalization reveals flaws in the belief, a thoughtful, rational person might be wise to adjust their belief. I have always been uncomfortable with the popular expression of a reason/feeling dichotomy (it's a bummer when I have to fill out one of those personality profiles, I can tell you). So I would not say that a thoughtful person's reflection of their feelings necessarily mere rationalis <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jul 29, 2006

Jon, too much thinking, mate . Everybody knows what is meant by "fundamentalism." Yep, I have been told I do that. You may call me Cassius.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The problem is that everyone thinks they know what is meant by "fundamentalist", the problem is they are generally wrong. OK, maybe I'm being parochial here and thinking like an American. Yes, for the sake of argument, I could pick out the differences between Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, etc., but what's the point? Does an Islamic Fundamentalist have a similar attitude towards science as a Christian Fundamentalist? I don't know for sure, but my guess is that neither group supports science as much as, say, non-fundamentalist Chrisitanity and Islam. The problem is the these labels are applied by the media for effect, not for analysis. The groups are in reality very different. It's important actually know what people say, not what the popular culture labels them. And it doesn't matter that "several leading fundamentalists" did whatever. I don't doubt that a few of any group will be different from the norm. Actually it does. These were the people who to a large degree shaped the character of American fundamentalism in the first 20 years of the 20th century. The fact that most American Christian fundamentalists would be shocked to discover the neutrality towards to actual support of organic evolution by the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement shows how much the movement changed over the 20th century. There wer similar 180 degree shifts in other areas as well, influding political affilations, attitudes towards big business, etc. It is interesting because it shows much much movements of any kind (not just religious) can evolve over time and the dangers of assuming that a common label means a common point of view in every area. Another example is how the word "liberal" means diametric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

alokmohan · Jul 29, 2006

In India Hindu fundamentalists have not interfered in space matters.ISRO is NASA equivalent in India,they are planning to go to moon.What I mean to say is that fundamentlist act on concrete needs of their organisation.To Indian public in general space is no issue,fundamentalists dont bother.Christians are always up in science,so fundamentalism is strong.

Swampcat · Jul 29, 2006

Jon, I don't have much time to respond as I'm about to leave on another road trip (two days this time), but I will try to respond some. Actually, I find little to disagree with. We are not that far apart on our views. I could nitpick, but that is not very interesting and I'm not inclined to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentatitve <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. I will just make a few comments and that will probably end my participation in this discussion. It has been fun. Thanks for that <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />. "This is what makes your experience so valuable, in that it provides specific informatrion of attitudes of a particular subset of the population. Whether this can then be extrapolated to Christains as a whole, or religious people in general, is a different kettle of fish. Most of the chruch goers I know who shudder to think that Pat Robertson's attitudes might be considered typical, let alone normative! So moving from the specifics (which I think it would be most useful to discuss) to the generalities 9which may be somewhat off topic)...." As I've mentioned before, I am not trying to impugn all Christians (or other faiths). I am aware that many persons of faith do not share Mr. Robertson's views. The original topic of this thread concerns the possible negative effect religion has on space exploration. That was indeed a broad indictment of religion which I don't necessarily agree with. I have been trying to make the point that there is, however, a substantial and vocal subset of (predominately) Christians who are either opposed to science (and by extension, space exploration) or inclined to corrupt science so that it adheres to their interpretation of Christianity. Again, no indictment against Christians in general is intended. "I have always been uncomfortable with the popular expression of a reason/feeling dichotomy (it's a bu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

alokmohan · Jul 29, 2006

Can you cite a single instance where space exploration has been hampered by religious leaders?Down grading evolution is too some extent influenced by religious thought.Not possibly in field of space exploration.

docm · Jul 29, 2006

Speaking as a politically conservative Christian I can tell you that Pat Robertsons influence among other Christians is a tiny fraction of his media exposure and dropping, fast. ex: his viewership is 863,000 out of the 340,000,000 population in the US & Canada, or 0.0025 of the whole. This dispite ~47% of the US population being self-discribed Evangelicals (Gallup: 1998). Those in the media who enjoy whipping Christians keep him around for the purpose in spite of his clerical irrelevency. As for science vs. religion; I find it a false issue. On the controversial issues of the day such as the use of embryonic stem cells (ESC's) Christians break down not too much different than other groups in terms of pro/con. Many of the people I know who are most 'against' the use of embryonic stem cells are NOT religious at all, and quite a few are physicians. They object on the grounds that ESC's have not been that successful in creating treatments while adult and cord blood stem cells have been. In fact adult stem cells have an attractive characteristic: transdifferentiation. Adult stem cells can be taken from another part of the patient then turned into the type of cell needed without the worry of an autoimmune response. ex: neural stem cells (NSC) can give rise to blood and skeletal muscle. Bone marrow cells can give rise to muscle, liver cells, and astrocytes. Treatments based on ESC's can unfortunately cause a strong autoimmune response, and in some people a lethal one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jul 30, 2006

Yep, I think we have a lot in common here. Perhaps the main disagreement may be I see the past as the key to the present and a guide to the future, whereas you appear to agree with Edna Mole, never talks about the past because it interfers with the now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Have a safe trip. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

docm · Jul 30, 2006

The past can be a guide, but it can also poison the future if misinterpreted. The midde east is a great example. Everyone there could learn something from Edna <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jul 30, 2006

Indeed. But it all depends what lessons people take from the past. As it is said, those who fail from history are doomed to repeat it. But it is also said that the only lesson we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

cmecu2 · Jul 30, 2006

Im a christian, also a Young earth Creationist and my point of view of space exploration is fine for those who ever wish to do it. Im neither for, nor against space exploration. What you could look at is more like what are we spending our money on. People could say lets spend this money we use in space exploration on taking care of our needs on earth first i.e. poverty, hunger, education ect ect , then once we got that under control then splurge on other things. The universe isnt going anywhere, its going to be here for a time we cant even comprehend. I dont know if people should view religion as something that slows space exploration down. Astronomy is just 1 of many fields of science. Most of our scientific fields were founded by bible believing people who had based their decisions with a creator in mind. PS.. one a side note, I love to sit outside at night with my parents when i visit them and look up at the stars. There isnt anything I can think of thats more content than being around loved ones sitting on some chairs sipping soda, listening to nature in the woods behind the house. Also I dream alot of floating off the earth and into outer space, but get scared and it wakes me up hehe.

Swampcat · Jul 30, 2006

Jon, just got back from my weekend trip and I'm exhausted. Thought I'd check in here and see what's happening. It seems there are a few more interesting posts to ponder. I hope I can respond, but I have a 4 day road trip to South Carolina coming up starting Tuesday morning. (Four days without Uplink !!! I'll be going nuts for sure <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" />.) Anyway, this is just a quick response to your post before I try to get some much needed sleep. It was a busy weekend. "Perhaps the main disagreement may be I see the past as the key to the present and a guide to the future, whereas you appear to agree with Edna Mole, never talks about the past because it interfers with the now. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />" Interesting interpretation, but not really what I wanted to convey. I am, in fact, very much interested in history (and do enjoy your historical references) and feel very strongly that one should learn history's lessons well in order to avoid making the same mistakes. I suppose what I was trying to get across was the idea that institutions change and that only the current position of an institution is relevant to today and how it will influence the future. An example might be the Catholic Church. At one point in history it was all bent out of shape over Galileo and his theories. Historically important, yes. Relevant to the position of today's Catholic Church? Hardly. I'm tired, so I hope that made sense. Perhaps I'll try again when I'm rested. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

silylene old · Aug 28, 2006

A recent article in Science (vol 313, pp 756-766, 2006) illustrates the impact of fundamentalist religious belief on the comprehension of science, in America (which is an almost uniquely American problem, as compared to Europe, Australia or other non-Moslem countries). Selections from this article: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This pattern is different from that seen in Europe and Japan. Looking first at the simpler true-false question, our analysis found that significantly (at the 0.01 to 0.05 level by difference of proportions) (11) more adults in Japan and 32 European countries accepted the concept of evolution than did American adults (see figure, right). Only Turkish adults were less likely to accept the concept of evolution than American adults. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France, 80% or more of adults accepted the concept of evolution, as did 78% of Japanese adults.... Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005. After 20 years of public debate, the public appears to be divided evenly in terms of accepting or rejecting evolution, with about one in five adults still undecided or unaware of the issue. This pattern is consistent with a number of sporadic national newspaper surveys reported in recent years (6-10). How can we account for this pattern of American reservations about the concept of evolution in the context of broad acceptance in Europe and Japan? First, the structure and beliefs of American fundamentalism historically differ from those of mainstream Protestantism in both the United States and Europe. The biblical literalist focus of fundamentalism in the United States sees Genesis as a true and accurate account of the creat</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

scipt · Aug 28, 2006

I was really surprised, i didn't know so many people in the US believed in God until after 9/11. The UK is a pretty Atheist country, i'd say the vast majority of my friends have no religion. Even among my parents generation belief is low. I think that WW2 and post-modernism, increased scientific knowledge, the 60's/70's liberalism and finally materialism of the 80's really bought down religion. It was a shocker here when Tony Blair admitted to praying to God for guidance over the Iraq war! People here voted for a man to lead the country, but he started praying to something which they don't even believe in. If Downing street started having prayer sessions which i believe (correct me if i'm wrong) they have in the White House, i think there would be a riot. In Europe religion is so far on the back foot now, it can't really lobby the government. Animal rights activists are the biggest pain in the arse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · Aug 28, 2006

Tony has let the cat out of the bag.Congrats to Tony.

scipt · Aug 28, 2006

That graph is very interesting. Generally the wealthier countries rank higher, and the poorer ones lower - with the very notable exeption of the US. I'm not anti-christian, but i think the US is shooting it's self in the foot by banning certain life science research. China and India are forging ahead in these areas now, and as we all know... where there is high tech, there is usually a strong economy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ittiz · Aug 29, 2006

I don't think religious people are slowing space exploration down. I think the environmentalists are though. We would have developed nuclear rockets back awhile ago except the environmentalists think the rockets will explode killing fish off the coast of Florida (we probably all remember the debacle with cassini).

qso1 · Aug 29, 2006

Ittiz: I don't think religious people are slowing space exploration down. I think the environmentalists are though. We would have developed nuclear rockets back awhile ago... Me: The nuclear rockets your probably thinking of were to have been used to propel manned craft to Mars. Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTR) were tested in Nevada in the 1960s. This program was known as Nuclear Engines for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) and was cancelled in 1972 not for environmental reasons (Except in cases where nuclear upper stages for rockets were proposed). NERVA was cancelled because manned mars missions were cancelled. There were some studies of nuclear rocket upper stages that NASA decided against because they were not that much more economical than chemical upper stages, especially since they would have been discarded after each use. If such programs were proposed today, they would run into much more resistance from environmentalists. Personally, I would have to agree with not using nuclear propulsion within the Earths atmosphere. Nuclear power for deep space probes I'm not opposed to because they are well designed and tested and do not produce radioactivity during launch and ascent within Earths atmosphere whereas nuclear upper stages would practically spew radioactivity across a large area with each launch. The protesters who protested the Galileo launch are an organization out of Gainsville Florida lead by Bruce Gagnon. These people were opposing the launch of vehicles powered by plutonium power sources rather than propulsion systems. And I agree, it was a debacle, for Gagnon and company. He had people walking around with signs saying "Keep space radiation free". I even saw a sign on one news cast that read "Keep Jupiter radiation free". This told me his protesters didn't know what they were protesting. There concern was a rocket explosion would rupture the casings containing the plutonium which in turn would spread <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Is Religion Slowing Down Space Exploration?

JonClarke

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

docm

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

docm

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

cmecu2

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

silylene old

Guest

scipt

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

scipt

Guest

ittiz

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page