i personally think more money should be spent exploring the oceans than space


so much potential down there, i happen to find myself questioning why we spend so much capital exploring space. Its cool and all but the potential is really right here in our seas

in my unscientific, layman's opinion

2/3/2010 1:34:38 PM

uhhh, you all do know NASA was using the private sector as the prime contractor, right?

2/3/2010 1:36:58 PM

there are definitely resources in the oceans, however we've been exploring them since the dawn of humanity.

and honestly, i know this is a little sci-fi far off big picture type thing, but what if at some point in the future Earth suffers a major catastrophe. (impact, war, disease, etc)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have people living off-world in that case to help preserve the species?


^yes.

[Edited on February 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2010 1:37:00 PM

nnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo i like space

2/3/2010 1:37:14 PM

who knows

in any world catastrophe im gonna be in the corner doin the tornado drill

2/3/2010 1:38:28 PM

If it wasn't for cool space movies, NASA would have been aborted long ago. That's the real reason Americans give a shit about space.

The Abyss was pretty awesome, but it's going to take more than that to get people caring about oceans.

2/3/2010 1:41:18 PM

Smath74, I totally agree with you that we need to develop a permanent base on the moon. By doing that I think that it will help us eventually get to Mars, and then who knows what technology we will have and where we will go.

I just think that for now that NASA isn't the best way to go...I mean we all know that once anyone gets to the moon the government will take control of it regardless.

2/3/2010 1:41:37 PM

Am I only one that could give a shit about space exploration??

And someone please inform me, what have we gotten out of space exploration in the past 10 or 15 years?? (this is an honest question....because I know we had to have gotten something, I just don't know what it is)

2/3/2010 1:41:46 PM

No one, anywhere, has a fraction of the technology rolled into that 30 year old space shuttle. There has never been a more capable launch system for scientific exploration and discovery.

Bottom line is NASA needs funding and we're constantly stripping them of it. 2010 budget is calling for around $9 billion... in the face of health care proposals topping 1 Trillion. Cutting edge research is not cheap.

Nor should you be so pompous to assume that the research doesn't trickle down into everyday life. Enjoy knowing what the weather will be like this week? How about GPS? Mapping software? Elevation maps for hiking? Integrated circuits? Communication technology? How about most synthetic clothing? Maybe you have allergies and use a home air filter? Maybe you're a tree hugger and you like your solar panels? The list goes on and on and on. Some estimates put that the tax revenue from NASA research spin-offs gross the US $7 to every $1 of R&D money.

2/3/2010 1:42:56 PM

^^well we've done a pretty good job littering it up

^ this is what I said earlier in the thread...

Quote :

"Anyway, NASA is really great at inventing things...not so great at doing the whole space thing..."

[Edited on February 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2010 1:43:17 PM

Quote :

"2010 budget is calling for around $9 billion... in the face of health care proposals topping 1 Trillion. Cutting edge research is not cheap. "

I don't see a problem with that at all.

2/3/2010 1:44:46 PM

I don't either...apparently keeping millions Americans healthy should take a back burner to getting 3 people on the moon.

2/3/2010 1:47:31 PM

I hope the private sector starts working on time travel.

2/3/2010 1:53:51 PM

THIS LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR SPACE ELEVATOR

2/3/2010 1:57:57 PM

Quote :

"I don't either...apparently keeping millions Americans healthy should take a back burner to getting 3 people on the moon."

whole lee fuck - that was dumb. The cure for cancer is in space.

2/3/2010 2:51:49 PM

Quote :

"I don't either...apparently keeping millions Americans healthy should take a back burner to getting 3 people on the moon."

yeah, like any sort of 'healthcare reform' is gonna do that at all...

2/3/2010 2:57:58 PM

Quote :

"We got there quickly in the 60s due to the government."

2/3/2010 3:24:28 PM

Quote :

"whole lee fuck - that was dumb. The cure for cancer is in space. "

?

2/3/2010 3:51:05 PM

Quote :

"Anyway, NASA is really great at inventing things...not so great at doing the whole space thing..."

Alrighty, it's fun to just throw shit out there and feel satisfied with yourself, but really, stop. All of the technologies we associate with space travel and that have spun off as a result of those technological developments were due to the fact that, in order for NASA to send men and equipment into space, they had to make massive technological leaps to make it all happen. The great leaps in technology NASA accomplishes aren't because they decided to do research on something just for the fun of it. They were assigned a complex engineering problem which they then worked to solve with the aid of private industry. Private industry collaborated with NASA engineers to create new technologies and systems that led to many of the things we take for granted today. Saying that we shouldn't go into space because the only useful thing NASA ever did for the human race was come up with more compact electronics and heart rate monitors is completely overlooking the fact that these technologies didn't really have need to exist until NASA was confronted with a series of incredibly complex engineering problems resulting from the investigation of space-capable systems. The same argument could be made for military R&D. We don't know what technologies we'll need to invent until we start seriously developing new platforms/systems to do new things. Pushing the development of new space/sea/land/air technologies are all an important part of this. Canceling a planned trip to the moon/mars just leaves us without knowing what sort of technologies might have been developed to meet the needs of the mission this time around.

Quote :

"I don't either...apparently keeping millions Americans healthy should take a back burner to getting 3 people on the moon."

You're either a troll or an idiot. NASA gets paid $jews. Doubling their budget would be inconsequential considering the other places the government could cut funding if they wanted to. This isn't an either or situation where we're forced to pick between space travel or making a first major attempt at healthcare reform.

Quote :

"THIS LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR SPACE ELEVATOR"

Goddamn right. Too bad the technologies for doing that still aren't quite developed to the point where we could seriously consider doing this in the next twenty years.

I still think we should continually take on at least one large-scale space project (in addition to all the other research/exploratory missions) just for the sake of discovery and to have something to rally around as a nation. What the hell do we have to show our kids to look up to nowadays? We're shutting down the shuttle program (which keeps blowing up our goddamn astronauts), we have no real way of getting people to space without being reliant upon other countries with this decision, and our biggest spending focus is something kids won't appreciate or understand anyway. Are they supposed to look up to our corrupt politicians? Our overinflated and entitled bureaucracy? Our overstretched military (who got many of their new projects cut as a part of the new administration's funding shifts)? A faltering private industry with whom the recovery hasn't quite taken hold yet? Projects like this are supposed to give people hope and excitement for their country and to prove to the entire human race that we can easily accomplish great things if we want to. We don't even have awesome large-scale infrastructure projects to look up to nowadays. The closest thing I can think of is the Colorado River Bridge. I mean, honestly, do you all have anything at all you look up to our country for? Don't you bloody say "Obama will make it better" because his administration has been just as bad as every other worthless asshole we've had in office.

[/alcohol fueled rant]

2/3/2010 5:12:42 PM

WOOOOOOO!

2/3/2010 5:14:34 PM

O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG


O MY GAWD KANG

2/3/2010 5:14:37 PM

If L-M employees weren’t so worthless and lazy and started to build worthwhile space vehicles, they could probably get back on the NASA gravy train.

[Edited on February 3, 2010 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2010 8:15:08 PM

who cares about putting people in space, we just need to worry about putting stuff in space.

and there are already private companies doing that.

2/3/2010 9:16:53 PM

Which defense firms will get lift from budget?

Quote :

"Small companies that provide next-generation systems and upgrades for unmanned systems and products that gather or monitor intelligence are poised for success, said Michael Ciarmoli, an aerospace and defense analyst with Boenning & Scattergood. … This week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he would dock Lockheed $614 million in performance fees because the F-35 program's performance had not met expectations over the past two years. Gates also replaced the Pentagon's manager in charge of the program. "Lockheed is highly respected and we certainly think its valuation is very cheap," Arment said. But, he added, "The JSF has slipped in terms of timing and we're not seeing the earnings progression that we'd like to see." "

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6125US20100203?type=globalMarketsNews

[Edited on February 3, 2010 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2010 10:42:02 PM

Fuck Gates

2/4/2010 12:05:25 AM

Quote :

"such as getting a foothold on the moon, the ability to go to asteroids, and eventually mars. "

We could be to Mars now if we didn't still have a hard-on for the moon.

2/4/2010 12:27:07 AM

>.<

more like we could be on mars now/in the past if we hadn't stopped at the moon

the correct progression should have been, space, orbit, station, moon, deepspace/mars.

instead we went, space, orbit, moon, orbit, space......

[Edited on February 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason : space = suborbital]

2/4/2010 12:02:21 PM

they sent the Mars Rover tho

2/4/2010 12:05:28 PM

4joshua

4/1/2011 12:19:30 AM

i was just going to use this to make fun of qntmbaby

now that it's actually been bttt'ed I feel very immature.

sorry guys.

4/1/2011 12:24:42 AM

Real mature, Mr. Joshua.

4/1/2011 12:25:05 AM

Actually, the Orion project (not this one but one of the other NASA projects called Orion) was one of the inspirations for my daughter's name

I had an astronomy book when I was a kid that was a strong influence on my interest in such matters, and one of my favorite pages talked about the Orion Project

4/1/2011 8:08:52 AM

How did I not see this thread last year? Lots of ignorance in this thread.

I lolled at this though:

Quote :

"Anyway, NASA is really great at inventing things...not so great at doing the whole space thing... Virgin Galactic already has a vehicle that can go suborbital and they are selling tickets for it already. "

NASA has put more things and more people in space than any other space program in history. Good job to Virgin Galactic... let's see if they could have done the same thing 60 years ago without any modern day technology or experience in rocketry or the mechanics of space flight.

4/1/2011 10:24:19 AM

^^you mean the massive nuclear-pulse powered ship?

4/1/2011 10:28:58 AM

I just want more development done with the plasma booster, shit is awesome.

4/1/2011 10:41:38 AM

^^^^ gg.

I feel bad for the kid named Soyuz.

4/1/2011 3:41:37 PM