Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a debate in a week in which I am arguing for space exploration to continue to be funded by the US government. I would love it if you dakkanauts could provide your opinions on the issue, either for or against my side of the debate. Right now, the main points I am going to be arguing are that it is for the advancement of science/knowledge, to take the first step in colonizing new worlds and encourage international cooperation. I'm open to any and all viewpoints.

Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

I see space exploration as a luxury expenditure at this time, and not really one that we can afford.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the stars will one day belong to humanity, and rightfully so, but right now we have so much gak to deal with.

I think space travel is going to have to be one of those private sector things.

Frazzled wrote:Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

But consider this:

It makes up less than 1% of the budget, and there are more benefits than you might realize. The space race thus far has produced a large amount of technology that have become commonplace in our daily lives, such as MRI’s, smoke detectors, and GPS devices. Beyond that, we're getting to the point where we will need some place else to go, correct? The population here on earth is reaching 7 billion, and sooner or later the earth is going to be so overpopulated and polluted that it will be barely inhabitable, not to mention completely devoid of its natural beauty. If we truly value earth, we need to start colonizing other worlds.

Privatization means that the primary motive for exploration will be profit though, not any scientific gains.

We should be funding space travel.

The private sector should ALSO be funding space travel.

The private and public sector should be hitching rides with and buying technology from each other.

Both should be involved. Some things are inherently unprofitable. We should pay for those. The benefits of that work can still be reaped by the private sector if there is good communication and partnership between them.

We're going into an odd period where the private sector is increasing, but not doing very much yet. As it grows, things will start to speed up again.

Government should STILL be involved though, there are certain projects of certain scale that just can't be done without some tax money.

For as much as i'd love to be zooming around the stars in my own personal battle barge i think its more pertinent for the human race as whole to maybe finish exploring our own world first. We spend billions trying to explore the stars yet we have minimal knowledge of whats going on down in the deepest parts of the oceans. So many deep cave structures are yet to be fully explored. I mean we havent fully explored the heart of the Amazon rainforest yet...

The race for the moon after WW2 was driven by massive political motivation, and also economies which had more money than they knew what to do with.

Now China is fast approaching a similar situation, with perhaps India following shortly behind. Both countries have already spelled out a firm commitment to space exploration, and are fast developing technology to be able to realise this. China for instance recently tested out their own space suit, and as anyone with knowledge of the science involved in making one of those, they are extremely complex pieces of kit.

The balance of the world economy and power is changing. They are a little behind at the moment, but my guess, the first space pod to land on Mars will have a red flag on it with yellow stars.

Although I think regardless of whoever achieves it first will be a massive achievement for humanity. I like to think we can elevate ourselves above the petty squabbles and bickering that dominate current events, that are the constant reminded of the the human condition and its inability to separate itself from our humble animal origins, and that we are capable of more as a species than we have shown so far.

I think space exploration is our next 'evolutionary step'.

Planetary/Space colonisation would help us avoid extinction from nasty asteroid strikes and other celestial events.

We shall spread, like a great plague, amongst the stars!

I see a sea colony before a orbit/moon colony though.

imark789 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

But consider this:

It makes up less than 1% of the budget, and there are more benefits than you might realize.

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

Instead argue that space colonisation is a requirement for the continued survival of the human race long term.

Orlanth wrote:

imark789 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

But consider this:

It makes up less than 1% of the budget, and there are more benefits than you might realize.

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

Instead argue that space colonisation is a requirement for the continued survival of the human race long term.

Correct, but I think that's less than most people realize is being spent on it. It is less of an argument than it is a fact to let my audience know how much we actually are spending on it. Space colonization will be one of the biggest parts of my argument

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

No, it doesn't. Anyone familiar with the US budget knows what 1% of it is. They also know that if you want to start agruing about pointless expenditures of government money there are plenty of places you can save significantly more money than that with fewer actual returns. Acting like space exploration is going to break the back of the US budget is what's ignorant.

Instead argue that space colonisation is a requirement for the continued survival of the human race long term.

Yeah, you've got this backwards. When talking to the average person talking about how we can be wiped out by a meteor or something and have to colonize other worlds will completely lose them. Emphasizing how small a part of the budget space exploration actually is versus the returns we've gotten from that investment is what will sway average folks.

We should be funding space travel.

The private sector should ALSO be funding space travel.

The private and public sector should be hitching rides with and buying technology from each other.

Both should be involved. Some things are inherently unprofitable. We should pay for those. The benefits of that work can still be reaped by the private sector if there is good communication and partnership between them.

We're going into an odd period where the private sector is increasing, but not doing very much yet. As it grows, things will start to speed up again.

Government should STILL be involved though, there are certain projects of certain scale that just can't be done without some tax money.

This pretty much covers me approach to the question. It's not either/or, it's both.

Orlanth wrote:

imark789 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

But consider this:

It makes up less than 1% of the budget, and there are more benefits than you might realize.

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

Instead argue that space colonisation is a requirement for the continued survival of the human race long term.

Except its not of course. There's nothing about space colonization that will save the human race.

1% of the total budget - how many kids could go to college on that? Space exploration/colonization is merely porkbarrel space/industrial complex corporate welfare. We need only look at the absolute travesty of the ISS to see that.

Jihadin wrote:I see a sea colony before a orbit/moon colony though.

Because beneath the surface, lies the future.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

imark789 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its a waste of money that literally out of this world?

But consider this:

It makes up less than 1% of the budget, and there are more benefits than you might realize.

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

Instead argue that space colonisation is a requirement for the continued survival of the human race long term.

Except its not of course. There's nothing about space colonization that will save the human race.

1% of the total budget - how many kids could go to college on that? Space exploration/colonization is merely porkbarrel space/industrial complex corporate welfare. We need only look at the absolute travesty of the ISS to see that.

How many colleges exist because of us spending that 1%?

I hear Aerospace engineering pays big bucks and there are shortages...

every dollar we spend in NASA research yeilds 1000 dollars in economic growth from the products/research they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

As for the ISS... you mean developing ways to overcome problems in space has Never benefited us on earth?

Frazzled wrote:Except its not of course. There's nothing about space colonization that will save the human race.

Eventually, this planet will become uninhabitable. It could be a billion years from now (Sun getting hotter as it gets older), or it could be in our lifetimes (asteroid impact, nuclear winter, global warming, supervirus, etc). We need to have some way of getting permanently off this planet in order to survive.

Frazzled wrote:1% of the total budget - how many kids could go to college on that?

Quite a few. But, a large portion of NASA's budget goes right back into funding research projects at Universities. And, if you take those away, you loose professors, which really defeats the purpose of going to college in the first place.

Frazzled wrote:Space exploration/colonization is merely porkbarrel space/industrial complex corporate welfare. We need only look at the absolute travesty of the ISS to see that.

Wow, someone is really hostile to the idea that exploring the unknown is inherently valuable. But, you're right, looking for new things and increasing knowledge is worthless. Now, please turn off your computer and other electronic devices, leave North America (unless you're a Native American). Your feudal lord is expecting you to get back to planting his fields in a few months.

Wow, someone is really hostile to the idea that exploring the unknown is inherently valuable.
False dichotomy. You have to put a price tag to it. Whats the cost/reward? We would have never entered the space race except for the Cold War.

But, you're right, looking for new things and increasing knowledge is worthless.
Again, its simple cost/benefit. Do I want to fund pure research, or pork barrel spending with a little side benefit. I'd rather fund it directly

Now, please turn off your computer and other electronic devices, leave North America (unless you're a Native American).
No way. We conquered it fair and square. More importantly your logic is flawed. It didn't cost a trillion dollars to get a hand full of settlers to the new world. Further, not sure what the electronic devices crack has to do with it. Last I saw, Sony wasn't funded by the government spending.

Your feudal lord is expecting you to get back to planting his fields in a few months.
As the son of a man who had to pick cotton as a boy, I won't get mad at you or anything. Instead I invite you to explore the question, what if Europe didn't have af eudal system in the Middle Ages? -

Frazzled wrote:As the son of a man who had to pick cotton as a boy, I won't get mad at you or anything. Instead I invite you to explore the question, what if Europe didn't have af eudal system in the Middle Ages?

/points to Greece

I tend to agree that space travel is enormously expensive and a very questionable expense in many ways. Sure...*if* the human race is still around umpteen million years from now, we'll need to get off the planet. Fine. Why spend money on that *now* for such a long-range threat? Seems like a much more prudent use of funds would be to set up a planetary defense system to protect against the *near-term* threat represented by asteroids, etc. Our priorities are backwards IMO.

The search for extraterrestrial life seems even more pointless to me. If scientists discover that Mars had microbial life a million years ago...so what? I'm an intellectually curious person and think it'd be interesting to know, but I don't see how it's worth billions of research dollars with no technology payoff etc. at the end. The stock answer here is that we'll know that "we aren't alone." I say that if you can't meet them or talk to them, we really kinda are alone, and maybe people would respect and protect our planet more if they accepted that.

This all comes from someone who wanted to be an astronaut as a kid, FYI.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, someone is really hostile to the idea that exploring the unknown is inherently valuable.
False dichotomy. You have to put a price tag to it. Whats the cost/reward? We would have never entered the space race except for the Cold War.

But, you're right, looking for new things and increasing knowledge is worthless.
Again, its simple cost/benefit. Do I want to fund pure research, or pork barrel spending with a little side benefit. I'd rather fund it directly

Now, please turn off your computer and other electronic devices, leave North America (unless you're a Native American).
No way. We conquered it fair and square. More importantly your logic is flawed. It didn't cost a trillion dollars to get a hand full of settlers to the new world. Further, not sure what the electronic devices crack has to do with it. Last I saw, Sony wasn't funded by the government spending.

Your feudal lord is expecting you to get back to planting his fields in a few months.
As the son of a man who had to pick cotton as a boy, I won't get mad at you or anything. Instead I invite you to explore the question, what if Europe didn't have af eudal system in the Middle Ages? -

Many of the leaps and bounds of electronics and technology (computing, many plastics, velcro, etc.) were due to NASA and the requirement of the space race. Much of it wouldn't have come to be if it was directly funded, as it wouldn't have been directly funded. Research doesn't work that way. You don't go "just make me new things!" You have to have a goal and in the pursuit of that goal and then apply it towards different aspects of life. A few examples of things we wouldn't have were it not for the funding of NASA:
Kindey dialysis machines
Bacteria filters for water
CAT and MRI machines
Cordless power tools
Smoke detectors (more reliable)
Shoe insoles
Hell... scratch resistant glass, which is on damn near everything you own

None of that would have been possible in the time frame that it was if it wasn't for NASA.

As for the electronics stuff... well the advancement of the microchip is due largely to the efforts of NASA. As such, you don't have to turn off all electronic devices, but only use stuff that's more than 10 years old.

We need to go to the stars, sadly our dreams for tomorrow are being crushed by the inconveniences of today. We should be on Mars already. People with no vision but greed have destroyed the future.

Check this out from Scientific American, just posted today:

Who Should Explore Space: Astronauts or Astro-Bots?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/05/who-should-explore-space-astronauts-or-astro-bots/

Kindey dialysis machines
***I could fund, you know aACTUAL medical research more cheaply and do the same thing

Bacteria filters for water
***I think that’s more the purview of the US Navy. Again, if there’s a need, direct funding is easier.

CAT and MRI machines
***Same to same.

Cordless power tools
***You mean…batteries? Er those were around before NASA (I believe the Greeks had one)

Smoke detectors (more reliable)
***Again if there’s a market, someone will make it.

Shoe insoles
***What seriously? A $1,000,000,000,000 for…SHOE INSOLES???

Hell... scratch resistant glass, which is on damn near everything you own
***They had that in aircraft in WWII. Try again.

We can't leave the earth to we fully exploit it. Sea colonies. Eventually...sea weiner dogs

Jihadin wrote:We can't leave the earth to we fully exploit it. Sea colonies. Eventually...sea weiner dogs

keep saying it until someone gets it.
Because bbeneath the surface lies the future

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I see space exploration as a luxury expenditure at this time, and not really one that we can afford.

Agreed. We still have too many countries we need to bomb the feth out of and occupy...

Wow, I have to say I'm a little surprised by the lack of imagination and desire for exploration from people who are obviously fans of science fiction for having been members of this forum. Did the exploits of the USS Enterprise not teach you anything?

Interestingly, while I was in South Korea, I found out their government is investing heavily in both space and robot technology. The reason, I was told by a Korean undergraduate, is that their is a common conception that the East lost out to the West in not being at the forefront of rocket technology and the scientific drive that sprung chiefly from the US after the 2nd world war, and all the benefits that came with it - not only economical, but also political and a realisation of political strength in the world order which came from it. Robotics in Korea is subsidised by the government to the tune of several billion dollars a year, when the next big push for technology arrives - be it through space travel, or communication (Korean satellite technology is now regarded as being the most advanced in the world alongside Japan) , they want to be there to reap the benefits. Ultimately their private sector will feed off the spoils, in the same way that the likes of IBM, AT&T and Boeing fed off large sponsored US government projects in the 60s.

I am being forced to play devils advocate here, because budget is not a tool for arguing for space exploration, its a powerful beatstick for the other side. You have to give other arguments and claim they transcend budgetary needs to successfully argue the case for space exploration.

Tyyr wrote:

Never use that argument, it sounds ignorant 1% of the US budget is a mind bogglingly vast amount of money.

No, it doesn't. Anyone familiar with the US budget knows what 1% of it is.

US public spending is 3.7 trillion dollars, 1.1 trillion dollars more than the US can afford from revenue. 1% of that is more than just a lot, its a lot of avoided interest.

Tyyr wrote:
They also know that if you want to start arguing about pointless expenditures of government money there are plenty of places you can save significantly more money than that with fewer actual returns. Acting like space exploration is going to break the back of the US budget is what's ignorant.

So your argument is someone else gets to squander money so why cant I? You should have heeded the warning about ignorance.
Government payments are an unavoidable bugbear because so long as humans have anything to do with it some of the monies will be spent inefficiently, incompetently or fraudulently. There is no real way around this, except a funding off switch. Now the US cannot decide to cease funding the armed forces, police, prisons, mail service or its own bureaucrats, also some welfare costs are unavoidable in any civilised society. Space exploration however can be turned off.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, someone is really hostile to the idea that exploring the unknown is inherently valuable.
False dichotomy. You have to put a price tag to it. Whats the cost/reward? We would have never entered the space race except for the Cold War.

But, you're right, looking for new things and increasing knowledge is worthless.
Again, its simple cost/benefit. Do I want to fund pure research, or pork barrel spending with a little side benefit. I'd rather fund it directly

Frazzie here has it right. You can get the research through direct spending or finding other outlets for the spending. The military being the prime one, and yes you can still get to launch satellites under DoD spending.

Secondly we already have access to most of the tech tree other means. So space in itself is not a primary catalyst for development. For example miniaturization, lightweight radiation shielding, centrifugal gravity, more efficient battery and solar panels and high efficiency rockets are all needed here on earth for entirely practical purposes.

Also we can explode the myth that many of the breakthrough technologies were developed for NASA. Take two pivotal technologies introduced to us from the manned space program, the microchip and the cellphone battery. The microchip for example supposedly first made for the Apollo command module. Wrong, NASA was its first noted major customer not the inventor. Besides the technology was very likely invented for missile and aircraft avionics and used later with a fanfare. This and other technologies like improved batteries were on the way anyway. While mobile phones, which used to resemble large bricks not too long ago supposedly have much to thank space exploration for, the new high batteries made for the ISS were designed for from the outset for lightweight military radios and exploited most for commercial cellphones. The fact that the ISS has an enormous cellphone battery is an icon for something which was coming anyway. Besides that icon was Russian not NASA.

To top it all science for science sake is best left to the laboratory. I will end off with a classic example of NASA wasted development: the microgravity ballpoint. Ballpoint pens use gravity to work, which is why you cannot write for long with the pen upside down, NASA apparently spent $2 million 'solving' this. The Soviets seemed very interested in this new technology and after the NASA guys finished being proud of themselves the Soviets whipped out their solution: provide the cosmonauts with pencils.

Funding is not a good argument.

Instead focus on:

Propaganda value - The Soviets won the space race, first satellite, first man in space, first interplanetary probe, first space robot, first to build a manned space station, and built a series of them, first to achieve hemispheric launch capability. All of these were important milestones and some of them were scary to western civilians, especially Sputnik. Apollo put men on the moon and gave the US through the media an opportunity to claim the space race was 'won'.

International cooperation - Starting with and most significantly with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project in 1975. Giving two old enemies a reason to cooperate on something high profile high security and yet harmless. Followed this up with a number of cooperation measures culminating in the ISS.

The need to expand - Humanity has only two long term prospects, conservation and space colonisation. Conservation requires everyone to get on board to work, humans aren't like that though, especially as green economics, even if enforced globally ( a big if) will yield extra profit for those that circumvent them. space colonisation avoids having to sort out the human race, the problems are merely technological and thus in all likelihood easier to overcome.

Space is beautiful - Not quite the same as the propaganda value, but similar. Being in orbit teaches you something about the Earth, it literally widens your horizons physically and metaphorically. If you want peace on Earth this is a good place to find it as almost everyone gets the same impressions from the experience.

Jihadin wrote:We can't leave the earth to we fully exploit it. Sea colonies. Eventually...sea weiner dogs

We call those...otters.

The Many. The Wet. The SeaWienies!

Interesting fact. You have to wash TBone (see avatar) first. if you wash the Shanker first and then TBone, when you put Tbone down he will immediately attack the other wiener dog. Every Time.

Inversely the younger dog has to go down the stairs first. If Tbone gets down first, he will attack the other wiener dog when it comes down. Are we starting to notice a trend here?

Destroying Religion - If you want to finally crush religion, Space exploration is the answer.

Oh, I'm sorry, were these little green men not in the Bible?

Humans and the cosmos are linked, inextrictably. We are of the stars, and we should seek to explore the stars. Even just harnessing the economic values of asteroids and comets would help out humanity, not to mention the scientific benefits of research to mars and to the stars. Heck, we are running out of resources like sand through our fingers.

If governments don't realise that the earth's resources are vastly more limited than they think, soon it's road warrior time. There are no second chances, no reprieves. Either we progress out of earth orbit, or we stay and stagnate.

People want to get off the earth, not just metaphorically, but literally. We need the space, the resources and the science.