I think NASA and space exploration is a waste of time and $...

[okayplayer]

Ok, so I was debating/arguing today with some friends (well, actually it was a friends' friends) about NASA and further space exploration. Basically, my stance on this is: I think that we have done as much exploration of space as is necessary for the time being, and that the money and resources that we spend on it could be much better spent elsewhere. Some examples of other areas where we could spend the time and money: renewable energy sources, education, addressing poverty and hunger, and healthcare.

I mean really what are all these "space missions" doing for us (it almost seems more PR and global boasting than science to me)? My idea is that once we address all of our issues internally, then we can look outwards into outerspace. We have basically done the main things that needed to be done: go to the moon, Mars, and examine their materials.

Any ideas, comments, criticisms?

I think the idea is that space exploration has to start somewhere.

If we ever want to be "big" in space, we need to start ahead of time, because if we ever find out we need to utilize the resources in space, we can't be going "damn, wish we had started this space research and development 25 years ago"

Also, there's man's curiosity, prestige, wealth etc and the things that result from them.

[BusterStacks]

I had prepared a disagreement post, but actually I think you are right on. Damn, good call.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
We have basically done the main things that needed to be done: go to the moon, Mars, and examine their materials.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may be mining the moon sooner than you think. The moon is rich in nuclear material.

NASA does a lot of good in areas you don't hear about. Particularly in the aeronautics industry. It used to do amazing things. But it is currently ran by beaurocrats that would rather sip wine, smoke a cigar than get any actual research done. It's a shame, but it's politics.

[BusterStacks]

So do you feel that the money going to NASA, in it's current state, would be better spent elsewhere? I don't understand your position on this issue.

[wacki]

Yes and no. NASA currently spends $35,000 a pound to launch the shuttle into space. Why? Because a human in space is good for "PR". It's so dumb, we don't need it. We could do it at a fraction.

Basically, NASA has a lot of potential to do wonderful work. They are even leading the field in technology development that will help make hydrogen cars a reality. However, beaurocrats are wasting $$, time, and resources. It's what happens when science and suits mix. They don't perform well.

Linky

[BusterStacks]

So if it were up to you whether NASA would continue it's current funding schedule, or that the entire NASA budget be reassigned to " renewable energy sources, education, addressing poverty and hunger, and healthcare. ". Which would you choose? Black or white, no gray area.

[gulebjorn]

Did you not see Armageddon?

[whiskeytown]

we tend to make some great pushes in science in the Space program, developing technology that eventually filters it's way down to real world uses we may not have even anticipated - it'd be a shame to let it go...

Innovation will bring what's needed to make it successful, in time, anyways. Not in my lifetime, but in the next couple, I think

RB

-Ferdinand?
-Yes, dear?
-There's this italian sounding guy, Christopher-something, outside who wants money. He says he wants to sail west and discover new land.
-New land? What for? We have enough land here.
-It could bring untold riches, he says.
-We are already rich. Tell him to bugger off.