GameBanshee Forums

Gliese 581 c is not really suitable for human habitation... Its surface gravity is 1.5-2 times ours... In addition, the surface temperature is not actually known...

I think we have enough problems to contend with on this planet without worrying about space exploration and colonisation. Is the money spent on the space programme justified? Space exploration started due to the cold war... Have things really changed?

Mace Panda Poo wrote:Sorry, you lost me. You don't think we will because it has so many benefits?

Building and living in a space habitat is what has benefits; terraforming a planet != building a space habitat.

@Greg & Chanak: Earth will never resemble Utopia, and we'll always have problems that need solving. The Spanish could have certainly used the money they paid Columbus to feed the poor, yet I think we're all glad they didn't. Faraday could have been building schools instead of dynamos and Edison houses instead of generators, but I don't exactly fault them. Humanitarian efforts can continue in parallel to human progress, as the two reinforce each other.

The Battle of the Planets

Zim: "Why would you do all that?"
Martian Hologram: "Because it's cool."
Gir: "Mm-mm!"

..

Vicsun wrote:@Greg & Chanak: Earth will never resemble Utopia, and we'll always have problems that need solving. The Spanish could have certainly used the money they paid Columbus to feed the poor, yet I think we're all glad they didn't. Faraday could have been building schools instead of dynamos and Edison houses instead of generators, but I don't exactly fault them. Humanitarian efforts can continue in parallel to human progress, as the two reinforce each other.

Granted. But Bush wants to return to the moon. What use does that have, really?

Greg. wrote:Granted. But Bush wants to return to the moon. What use does that have, really?

Maybe he'll move there...:laugh:

Greg. wrote:Granted. But Bush wants to return to the moon. What use does that have, really?

In terms of pure science, I think it'd be tremendously more useful to send robotic probes around, though returning to the moon and building a permanent (or semi-permanent) base there, which is Bush's plan IIRC, has its own benefits. There are vast deposits of tritium which can be mined, and sending them back to Earth would be an interesting engineering problem which will almost certainly result in spin-off technologies.

If you want to talk about wasting money, let's talk about the International Space Station.


edit: many people don't know this, but NASA's budget is pretty much pocket change. America's little adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost around $600B and will cost another $145B in 2007. The Department of Defense's budget for 2007 is $481B (Iraq and Afghanistan not included). NASA's budget is $16.8B.

Vicsun wrote:edit: many people don't know this, but NASA's budget is pretty much pocket change. America's little adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost around $600B and will cost another $145B in 2007. The Department of Defense's budget for 2007 is $481B (Iraq and Afghanistan not included). NASA's budget is $16.8B.

Which is still more than twice as much as the Environmental Protection Agency received in 2006: $7.6B.

fable wrote:Which is still more than twice as much as the Environmental Protection Agency received in 2006: $7.6B.

Which is more than six times the money spent on renewable energy: $1.24B. What is your point exactly? NASA's budget hovers around 1% of the federal budget, and the EPA is even less. I still consider this to be pocket change.

e: What I meant with my original comment was that anyone who wants to fix the problems Earth is facing won't get far by scrapping NASA.