Save The Children .Occupations. C/D 31St...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Is there any point in space research?
22 Answers
http://
Wow these images are mind boggling (I think not)
Considering the research the manufacture and the huge costs incurred, would you say that this was time, money and resources well spent, when there are much more important matters that these geniuses could be addressing here back on Earth?
Wow these images are mind boggling (I think not)
Considering the research the manufacture and the huge costs incurred, would you say that this was time, money and resources well spent, when there are much more important matters that these geniuses could be addressing here back on Earth?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Some people want to run or jump higher than anyone else, some people want to know what's on another planet, some people want to cure diseases, some people want to explore ideas or capture complex emotions in a poem or a painting.
It's what human beings do - it's what we have always done.
Clearly the US Govt believe it is in their nation's interests to fund NASA and its projects.
Now. Where's the 'timeslip' online survey slagging off that Columbus bloke wasting all that money trying to get to China by sailing West?
It's what human beings do - it's what we have always done.
Clearly the US Govt believe it is in their nation's interests to fund NASA and its projects.
Now. Where's the 'timeslip' online survey slagging off that Columbus bloke wasting all that money trying to get to China by sailing West?
I think arguing about spin-off technologies misses the point and is perhaps attempting the easy way out of the question.
The real question is whether there is value to pure knowledge outside of it's application to technology and if so how do you calculate its value.
I think that you only have to look at the sales of books like Stephen Hawkins' "A brief history of time" to see that there is a great appetite for people to get some sort of understanding of some of the big questions and it is research like this and like the LHC that provides the information that feeds that appetite.
This mission is of course a gamble - I suspect it won't find anything this exciting but if it were to find solid evidence of past Martian life nobody would ever question whether or not it was worth spending money on.
The question though is if you accept that it's worth spending money on the pure research that furthers human knowlege how do you value it? How do you know how much you should spend?
It's simply impossible to do a trivial cost/benefit justification and so probably the best way is to decide to spend a certain amount of the countries GDP in research and then decide how to apportion that on different levels.
The UK Research council spends about £3 Billion which is about 0.5% of Government spending.
To me that doesn't sound unreasonable
The real question is whether there is value to pure knowledge outside of it's application to technology and if so how do you calculate its value.
I think that you only have to look at the sales of books like Stephen Hawkins' "A brief history of time" to see that there is a great appetite for people to get some sort of understanding of some of the big questions and it is research like this and like the LHC that provides the information that feeds that appetite.
This mission is of course a gamble - I suspect it won't find anything this exciting but if it were to find solid evidence of past Martian life nobody would ever question whether or not it was worth spending money on.
The question though is if you accept that it's worth spending money on the pure research that furthers human knowlege how do you value it? How do you know how much you should spend?
It's simply impossible to do a trivial cost/benefit justification and so probably the best way is to decide to spend a certain amount of the countries GDP in research and then decide how to apportion that on different levels.
The UK Research council spends about £3 Billion which is about 0.5% of Government spending.
To me that doesn't sound unreasonable
I like to see it as this simple.
We are sending a few bits of metal, glass, rubber etc from this rock to another rock. Who knows if it will be beneficial but if we don't we will never know.
The cost does not matter.
After all we are probably spending money somewhere on this planet to find out if a tomato can be gay.
We are sending a few bits of metal, glass, rubber etc from this rock to another rock. Who knows if it will be beneficial but if we don't we will never know.
The cost does not matter.
After all we are probably spending money somewhere on this planet to find out if a tomato can be gay.
I bet if you were around , you would have slagged off these blokes as well ... some thing like , if God had meant for man to fly , he would have given us wings ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Zeuhi
/// Now. Where's the 'timeslip' online survey slagging off that Columbus bloke wasting all that money trying to get to China by sailing West? ///
Yes but just look at materialised from that? The Great US of A and we all know what a certain number of ABers think of that great civilisation.
Do they want them to discover something even much more sinister that could ever be envisaged of a new 'New World'?
/// Now. Where's the 'timeslip' online survey slagging off that Columbus bloke wasting all that money trying to get to China by sailing West? ///
Yes but just look at materialised from that? The Great US of A and we all know what a certain number of ABers think of that great civilisation.
Do they want them to discover something even much more sinister that could ever be envisaged of a new 'New World'?
Not sure what sinister thing you have in mind AOG
I do have more serious concerns about whether there is any point in manned space research.
It is exponentially more expensive than probes - the ISS cost $150 Billion and doubtlessly consumed the budget that would otherwise have gone to a whole raft of research projects which may well have produced more important results.
The only reason I can see to justify a manned mission to Mars would be if good evidence for past life on Mars were found and there are no other realistic targets
I do have more serious concerns about whether there is any point in manned space research.
It is exponentially more expensive than probes - the ISS cost $150 Billion and doubtlessly consumed the budget that would otherwise have gone to a whole raft of research projects which may well have produced more important results.
The only reason I can see to justify a manned mission to Mars would be if good evidence for past life on Mars were found and there are no other realistic targets
<<Do they want them to discover something even much more sinister that could ever be envisaged of a new 'New World'? >>
Good question
It seems to me that if our messages beaming into space did reach anyone, 'They' might be super-advanced and beneficent - but they could just as likely be aggressive and malevolent or so advanced they disregard us.
I suppose the saving grace is that short of a method to move across dimensions or otherwise bend time and space, any other life forms will be too far away to reach us.
The US of A might have turned out better if our ancestors could have kept our colonists on-side for longer. Canada is a much more pleasant place despite being ridiculously cold in winter, with a much less interesting landscape and a rather dull, provincial ambience.
The latter would not apply if it was part of a greater Commonwealth of North America rather than the continent's also-ran.
Good question
It seems to me that if our messages beaming into space did reach anyone, 'They' might be super-advanced and beneficent - but they could just as likely be aggressive and malevolent or so advanced they disregard us.
I suppose the saving grace is that short of a method to move across dimensions or otherwise bend time and space, any other life forms will be too far away to reach us.
The US of A might have turned out better if our ancestors could have kept our colonists on-side for longer. Canada is a much more pleasant place despite being ridiculously cold in winter, with a much less interesting landscape and a rather dull, provincial ambience.
The latter would not apply if it was part of a greater Commonwealth of North America rather than the continent's also-ran.
Carl Sagan was certainly of the opinion that a voyage to Mars was of huge scientific value (including the possibility of technology that could divert small asteroids from hitting the earth):
--
But that aside, Jake is right - the argument about utility is somewhat secondary. The collections and information we are able to get from Mars, regardless of the results, will tell us more than we already know about how planets are formed (after all the only one we've really been able to sample and test first hand is Earth), and about the conditions which are or are not conducive for life originating. Compared to, say, the Olympics, the pursuit of knowledge about the universe is a far more noble cause.
I forget his name, but the director of a large particle accelerator in Chicago - was once asked several years ago in Congress what his lab would contribute to the defence of the United States. He replied, 'Nothing, but it'll make it worth defending.'
--
But that aside, Jake is right - the argument about utility is somewhat secondary. The collections and information we are able to get from Mars, regardless of the results, will tell us more than we already know about how planets are formed (after all the only one we've really been able to sample and test first hand is Earth), and about the conditions which are or are not conducive for life originating. Compared to, say, the Olympics, the pursuit of knowledge about the universe is a far more noble cause.
I forget his name, but the director of a large particle accelerator in Chicago - was once asked several years ago in Congress what his lab would contribute to the defence of the United States. He replied, 'Nothing, but it'll make it worth defending.'
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.