Is space exploration worth the resources?

[Eric Roosevelt]

There are many space-agencies in the world, but let's use NASA as an example. NASA's budget in 2008 was about $17 billion [1].

More is spent per year on toys (about $20 billion), and even more on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (several hundred billion in total so far) [2]. So compared to these things, space exploration is quite cheap.

On the other hand, $17 billion is a lot of money, and there are some aspects of space exploration which many people consider unnecessary (sending humans to Mars, building settlements on the moon etc).

Should we pursue ambitious space-exploration goals, or should we remain a bit more "down-to-earth" and spend the money on something else?

[Xanafax]

Well I think personally space exploration is important because other planets could have valuable resources.

Furthermore the Earth has a limited capacity. Eventually we gonna have to die off or expand out.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Should we pursue ambitious space-exploration goals, or should we remain a bit more "down-to-earth" and spend the money on something else?

Hell yes. Space is very important for us and we should as a society pursue going into space and colonizing it.

However, I think it should be done 100% voluntarily - all government should get out of financing it, and it should be left to the private sector. That way no one has to pay for space who doesn't want to pay for it.

[Daffy Duck]

We have enough resources in the world to explore space. I don't see resources as a problem of lack, rather, it is more a problem of distribution. While some people are starving, others are gorging themselves.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

...
On the other hand, $17 billion is a lot of money, and there are some aspects of space exploration which many people consider unnecessary (sending humans to Mars, building settlements on the moon etc).

Should we pursue ambitious space-exploration goals, or should we remain a bit more "down-to-earth" and spend the money on something else?

The definitive answer to that, IMO, was given in Robert A. Heinleins' Expanded Universe. He states (and proves) that all space technology has paid for itself many times over. I won't quote: read the book, it's awesome (am I a fan? ).

Apart from that: as mankind we either finish this planet at some point in time, or go out there and spread ourselves. I opt for the 2nd choice.

[Brutha]

NASA should have other goals.
1) Asteroid Defense.
We really don't want that an asteroid comes and kills all humans on earth.

We also don't want that an astroid comes and kills thousands of people. Astroids big enough to do that hit earth every houndred years or so.

2)Climate Monitoring:
Having satelites that tell us more about how the climate on our own planet works should also be on the NASA agenda.

Moon exploration can be completely privatised.
Maybe NASA should support the XPrize a big with money but the XPrize seems to me a better way for moon colonization.

Before sending humans to Mars we should think about how to make Mars inhabitabile. That probably leads to growing some bacteria or fungus in a lab that can survive Mars conditions and that produces CO2 or CH4.

If we beforehand want to search for life on Mars I think that we will have robots in ten to twenty years that can do the job as well as any human could do it for a resonable price.

[openeyes]

If the US government is going to spend as much money as it does, I'd be happy to see NASA and the Department of Defense switch budgets.

[Inthon]

Space exploration should be done by the private sector only.

Claiming the costs have been worth it does not measure up. Government spending distorts natural market forces. Had the engineers at NASA worked elsewhere they could be doing other, more useful engineering than going to the moon.

Also, taxing people or debt financing for a pet project (something the private sector doesn't do since there is little/no perceived value in doing so), is not fair to those that pay taxes.

The race to the moon was a *enis-measuring contest with Russia.

Yank the NASA cord out of the wall. Fire all the engineers, sell all the equipment and real estate and allow individuals to find consumer-pleasing work, not lobbyist-friendly aerospace pleasing work.

[runningbird]

from http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/HII.htm:

The Age of Space, of course, has already begun. Over 100 men and women have been into space; our TV brings us satellite photos every night on the weather forecasts and has brought us pictures of Mars and Jupiter. As home computers linked up with satellites in space become more common, the sense will grow in all of us that we are participating in the Space Age even if we are staying at home. But the longevity revolution will certainly increase the “population problem” in everybody’s awareness, so that migration into space will seem more and more necessary.

Since we already have communication satellites in plenty, the solar power satellites urged by California’s allegedly “flakey” Governor Brown cannot be far away. After all, ground-level solar power collectors can only tap the sun’s energy half a day at best, and not at all on cloudy, rainy, or overcast days. Yet a solar satellite can collect energy 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Even with the anti-tech bias in some circles these days, an idea like that cannot be long ignored.

Dr. Barry Commoner, one of the leading experts on ecology, pointed out at the 1980 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that, even before some kind of ecological disaster hits the planet, we will be in serious economic trouble if we continue to base our economy chiefly on non-renewable resources such as oil and coal. It’s a simple fact of economics that as a resource grows scarcer, its price goes up. (Looked at your gasoline bill lately?) If energy is not to become something only the rich can afford, Dr. Commoner says we must switch to renewable resources pretty damn quick.

Solar power is the most abundantly available of all renewable resources, and satellites are the best way to tap a lot of it.

But such solar satellites are just the first step in our expansion into extra-terrestrial economy.

Engineer G. Harry Stine has calculated that there are 10100 technical processes that can be performed cheaper or more efficiently in space than on the surface of a planet. This is an example of doing-more-with-less that might even make Bucky Fuller blink, but it is simple physics, based on the zero-gravity conditions and high-grade vacuum available in space.

In case anybody doesn’t know 10100 means 10 with a hundred zeroes after it. This is quite a large number (says he with English understatement) and makes the Industrial Revolution look like a tempest in a teapot by comparison. It seems to mean that, as industry moves into space, the rate of capital increase will accelerate much faster than the two percent per year that has prevailed since the late 19th century. In fact, it indicates that we are about to experience the greatest quantum jump in energy, resources, and wealth, since history began.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Brutha

NASA should have other goals.
1) Asteroid Defense.
We really don't want that an asteroid comes and kills all humans on earth.

We also don't want that an astroid comes and kills thousands of people. Astroids big enough to do that hit earth every houndred years or so.

2)Climate Monitoring:
Having satelites that tell us more about how the climate on our own planet works should also be on the NASA agenda.

[...]

If we beforehand want to search for life on Mars I think that we will have robots in ten to twenty years that can do the job as well as any human could do it for a resonable price.

I think many people consider the prestige of sending humans to Mars more important than finding life there. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but I basically agree with your point that we should prioritize other space-related goals. It would be ironic if we colonized Mars while at the same time allowing asteroids to destroy our home-planet.

NASA already has some advanced satellites for monitoring the climate. One of them crashed in the ocean near Antarctica.

[Brutha]

NASA already has some advanced satellites for monitoring the climate.

Yes, Nasa already does a bit for both Asteroid detection and Climate Protection.
But those projects get less funds if NASA focuses on prestige projects like a human Mars mission.

Prestige objects should be financed privately. I have no problems at all with Googles Moon 2.0 and other XPrizes for space exploration.

Since we already have communication satellites in plenty, the solar power satellites urged by California’s allegedly “flakey” Governor Brown cannot be far away. After all, ground-level solar power collectors can only tap the sun’s energy half a day at best, and not at all on cloudy, rainy, or overcast days. Yet a solar satellite can collect energy 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Even with the anti-tech bias in some circles these days, an idea like that cannot be long ignored.

Bringing satellites up there costs a lot of money and transporting energy from satellites back to earth isn't really easy either.

. But the longevity revolution will certainly increase the “population problem” in everybody’s awareness, so that migration into space will seem more and more necessary.

I really do think that making a planet like Mars inhabitible is the bigger problem than sending human beings over there.
To do that we might spend 1 billion (it spent on gen tech that will also produce other worthwhile techonology) for 20 years for some project that creates us an organism that can live there and create CO2/CH4. Afterwards we fly the organism to Mars and wait 50 years to let it change the climate.
Afterwards we can think about moving human beings over there.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Hell yes. Space is very important for us and we should as a society pursue going into space and colonizing it.

However, I think it should be done 100% voluntarily - all government should get out of financing it, and it should be left to the private sector. That way no one has to pay for space who doesn't want to pay for it.

Wouldn't the same go for government getting out of financing infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools , national security etc)? Why leave that in the government's budget but not space exploration?

Private financing is OK, but not many people / companies seem to want to invest in that, even if they think it's a good idea. So I'm all for governments investing in space technology. In fact, I can't see it getting financed any other way.

(Interestingly, R A Heinlein also wrote the very good novel 'The Man who sold the Moon', in which he explores exactly the idea of companies investing in space travel, amongst many other interesting food for thought.)

[SomeRandomGuy]

I think that government funded space exploration is a huge waste of money. If finding new resources or places for humans to spread is the goal, I think the money would be better spent trying to solve the problems of waste and over-population on Earth instead. If the Pro-NASA argument is related to technological advances lets move the NASA engineers to the private sector where they could be more productive and innovative.

I agree with other posters that privately financed space exploration is fine. Some companies may see a real opportunity with space exploration, and can therefore justify the expense. I simply cannot believe that we have gained anything of substance from government financed space exploration to justify the cost, at least nothing that could not have been achieved through other means (i.e. by the same people working in the private sector instead).

[Brutha]

Private financing is OK, but not many people / companies seem to want to invest in that, even if they think it's a good idea.

I don't think that is true at the moment.
Moon 2.0 is on track and has at the moment 17 registered teams that try to get to the Moon as cheaply as possible.
The question is always whether the government can better provide something or somebody else.

If your goal is to have in the near future (twenty till forty years maybe) solar satellites or commercial asteroid mining I don't think that NASA really is as effective as the private sector in that area.

[TaylorLord]

Even if other planets did have important resources, we aren't at the level to retrieve them back. We have a hard enough time getting a robot there, how would we get several million people there? I like the idea, but our technology isn't up to par. I say take all that money and put it back to our planet, create systems that will actively regenerate natural resources so we don't have to leave in the future. People seriously underestimate the rareness of earth. There isn't a planet like this anywhere. It was designed for the sole purpose of sustaining life. It has a sun and a moon, it contains everything we need water, oxygen and food. Its a self regenerating system God created for every living thing. I say cut off all space exploration and lets put that money into studying our home earth. We need to be mastering every inch into understanding our own planet. We shouldn't be trying to find a suitable somethings far off into space that are down right unattainable. That's ridicules, its not going to happen. We have GOLD right in front of our face and don't even realize it. We just need to open our eyes and look at the beauty that truly exists for us!

It reminds me of the story in the beginning of the power of now. If you havent read the book here is the short story.

A beggar had been sitting by the side of the road for over thirty years..One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you're sitting on?" "Nothing, " replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I've been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever look inside?," asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point, there's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar, reluctantly, managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

[vMike]

When the Earth becomes way too crowded and overpopulated we'll figure ways to adapt and colonize other planets for our existence. Instead of dying out or going back to the stone age, like that lame leftist movie suggest, humans will spread throughout the universe.

According to the scientists there aren't any other intelligent life in the universe, or at least not in the vicinity of our galaxy, so it all belongs to the human race and it's our full right, as well as responsibility to claim it and use it.

Originally Posted by seeker5

However, I think it should be done 100% voluntarily - all government should get out of financing it, and it should be left to the private sector. That way no one has to pay for space who doesn't want to pay for it.

This way no one is gonna pay for it voluntarily. There is no profit in it. Only the very very few will do it and that will hardly be enough.

[schola]

$17 billion? Give me 40 bucks and I'll get you something that will let you travel to other worlds from the comfort of your bean bag chair.