New NASA budget - increase $$ for failed programs

[askold]

" ...and certainly not sufficient to warrant such a racist suggestion as to eliminate 90% of humanity."<br /><br />I hope this wasn't aimed at me. If it was, please indicate where I posted such as racist (human race?) suggestion.

 

[josh_simonson]

It's racist because such a policy would invariably end up affecting people that are poorer, less educated, and basically unable to defend themselves from it, more than relatively wealthy people. <br /><br />Also, in the first world, folks are able to retire on their own savings and some state assistance, but in the third world people rely on their children to support them when they become elderly. Deny them children and you are basically condemning them to homelessness and death once they are unable to support themselves.<br /><br />I'd challenge you to submit a method of forced population reduction that doesn't have more significant negative effects on the poor and those from less developed countries, than successful folks in developed countries. Given that these folk are more often than not minorities, or not from the small list of highly successful races, such policies are fundamentally racist.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Regarding space mining:<br />I didn't say we should be doing it now, I just said that eventually lower costs of space access combined with higher prices of X material will result in an economical industry of mining objects in space. Sure it might cost $50bln now, but in 200 years it will be cheaper.<br /><br />I used copper and platinum as examples because at the rate these are used in developed countries, the existing deposits are not sufficient to expand a comparable level of development world-wide. Uranium was included because it isn't possible to 'run out of energy' while uranium is still easilly available.

 

[chriscdc]

Do you have any numbers to justify the claim that it will be economical to re-open the mines compared to asteroid mining?

 

[toymaker]

They are no plans for permenent colony by NASA.<br />And people can't live on the Moon-there is too little gravity.<br />NASA doesn't have the capability or plans for achieving a self-sufficient base in outer space-thus the only potential self-destructing factor, that being genetic modified virulent plague, that could destroy human life can't be protected against.Its doubtfull though if such thing could be created.<br />As to other dangers -they are already within our ability to defend against(asteroids) or on magnitude that even colonisation of Solar System wouldn't be able to protect against(supernova etc).<br />Sorry gentelman but you are living in SF book. The reality is waste of resources on another overhyped project that will fill the pockets of corrupt corporations.Such projects were brought by Reagan, Bush Senior before(heck I think we should have moonbase know IIRC according to their promises)<br />And at the same time the only space exploration bringing results for buck will be science exploration. Meanwhile 200 bilion dollars will be wasted on flags, footprints and fireworks.

 

[john_316]

As mentioned before on some other posts past and present we will eventually have to goto the solar system and the stars.<br /><br />World overpopulation is on the edge of stability of the planet. I know planet earth takes care of her own by causing all these disasters and such but we can only grow so much crops on the planet. Sooner or later starvation and disease will get the best of the population in certain areas such as Asia and Africa. Notice we dont have the problem in North America or Europe yet? But time will tell especially in Central and South America.<br /><br />Unless we result to the use of tactical nuclear warheads in about 25-50 years the planets population will outgrow the ability to feed its self and what happens when the rest of the world is starving and we arent? Unless death out number births by at least a 25% to 50% for a 10 year span we will see some problems occur both medically and economically. We arent going to ration what food we have to feed the world. That just wont happen and cant happen and when or if that did occur the government of the USA would go bye bye and a few select people hanging in the sun to dry.<br /><br />We have to look for answers to our dilemias not just cures for disease because the more people live and age and dont die because of medical break throughs then the more people who will be here as things go on. So unless we have some wackos promote Youthnasia then we will be in a predictament in 20+ years. So whats gonna happen then for those dreams of space flight?<br /><br />Send a crew to space and unleash a killer bug on earth to kill everyone and only have one cure with the crew of the spaceship?<br /><br />I dont like that idea and I for one wont die willingly for idiots/fascists and elitist's. My family comes first before the plans of government (USA or any other) and science. And I would take my chances in a firefight to protect my family then willing die just so the population can be kept under control. <br /><br />God does

 

[toymaker]

"I know planet earth takes care of her own by causing all these disasters and such but we can only grow so much crops on the planet."<br />So how many people can we feed ? If you make such claims I hope you have estimates.<br /><br />"Unless we result to the use of tactical nuclear warheads in about 25-50 years the planets population will outgrow the ability to feed its self and what happens when the rest of the world is starving and we arent?"<br />The rest of the world suffers rapid population decline, we don't.<br /><br /><br />Your rant is really bizarre and unfounded on any science.<br />And what is its relation to manned moon landings ? We are going to eat moon rocks ?<br />

 

[askold]

Thalion:<br /><br />It is hard to imagine a scenario where doing it in space will be easier than doing it here on Earth.<br /><br />Mining - drilling a mine shaft another 500 feet deeper has to be easier that chasing down an asteroid going 25,000 mph. Even easier - recycle everything, then you don;t have to drill that deeper mine shaft.<br /><br />Dealing with environmental and other problems - using up resources too fast? Conserve; it's easier than going to the moon for resources. Too many people? Give people an incentive to have smaller families - for example, social security and better health care. That's easier than breeding like rabbits then shipping off the excess billions to orbit Jupiter. And so it goes.<br /><br />Also, I was around during Apollo - the "problem" with Apollo was that it acheived its goals - to send a man to the moon and return him safely to Earth. Once that was done, there wasn't anything else to do.<br /><br />Additionally, let's face it, the moon is a pretty boring place. We didn't find moon-men or any other form of life, we didn't find water, we didn't find diamonds scattered over the surface. Just rocks much like the rocks here on Earth - just harder to get to.<br /><br />So, for decades nobody was too enthusiastic about going back. Nobody's still enthusiastic about going back. So, we have to set a new goal - going someplace new - Mars! But to get to Mars, we have to go back to the moon.<br /><br />What nonsense. What this is really all about is keeping the army of NASA employees employed. The problem is that science missions use a very small number of people to accomplish their goals. You have to send people into space to build a truly bloated bureaucracy.

 

[jwsmith]

askold writes: >>I only want science from my money - what do you want? <<<br /><br />I want my money in my pocket. I do not want the Government to spend money on space or anything else. <br /><br />"Space research and expolratition is not a proper government function except for the national defense of the land area which that government represents." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2">John Wayne Smith, CEO</font></p><p><font size="2">1000 Planets, Inc</font></p><p><font size="2">Http://www.1000Planets.com</font></p><p><font size="2">203 W.Magnolia St.</font></p><p><font size="2">Leesbutg Florida 34748</font></p><p><font size="2">Ph: 352 787 5550</font></p><p><font size="2">email jwsmith42000@aol.com</font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"You have to send people into space to build a truly bloated bureaucracy. "<br /><br />Clearly not true. Just compare ESA which has no manned spaceflight program (short of piggybacking on America and Russia) and spends an enormous amount of money, compared to Russia which is sending up multiple manned flights per year and on a tiny budget.<br /><br />Manned spaceflight isn't the core problem of high spending. Mis-management is the core problem of high spending.<br />

 

[askold]

Forget about ESA - look at NASA's missions for FY 2006:<br /><br />4.7 Billon for the Shuttle<br />1.7 Billion for the ISS<br />90 Million for the Phoenix Mars Lander.<br /><br />Yes, that's Million with an "M" to land on Mars. Compared with 4.7 Billion (with a "B") to send, maybe one shuttle up.

 

[gunsandrockets]

I am also critical of the bloated spending on the STS and the ISS. But the problem with those projects, the reason the spending is so high isn't because they are manned projects it's because they are mismanaged projects.