Posted on 08/06/2012 4:22:01 AM PDT by Islander7
PASADENA, Calif. — In a show of technological wizardry, the robotic explorer Curiosity blazed through the pink skies of Mars, steering itself to a gentle landing inside a giant crater for the most ambitious dig yet into the red planet’s past.
Cheers and applause echoed through the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory late Sunday after the most high-tech interplanetary rover ever built signaled it had survived a harrowing plunge through the thin Mars atmosphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Proud for sure and just more proof we are the greatest country to ever exist and are light years ahead of any other.
To bad the stain in the WH killed all the programs so he would have more vote buying cash.
You disagree with me about the desirability? I did not touch on that aspect, only the inevitability. I honestly believe that homo sapiens will spread to the planets of our system and beyond. Blame Heinlein, Nevin, Roddenberry, Asimov, Clarke, Von Braun, and Kubrick for planting such beliefs in my head.
As for who is going to pay for it? Well, I can think of several ways to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. As long as NASA is around, they will continue to justify their existence and, in the process, do some good technology development.
Hint--the idea isn't to find minerals or rocks. It is to explore a new world for mankind to conquer. The question is who is going to explore it and what kind of society will evolve from this exploration.
Bonus Hint--Look at how exploration and settlement evolved in the Western hemisphere. Spain and Portugal basically conquered and settled South America. North of the Rio Grande was colonized by the English and the French and later other Northern Europeans. Judge the result for yourself.
You're either extremely naive or a liar. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll consider you to be naive and explain where you went wrong. To get $8 you divided the amount by the population (and rounded down). BUT the entire population does NOT pay taxes, and those who do don't pay equal amounts. going by 2009 numbers - the most recent I can find - 115 million tax returns were filed in 2009, of which about 100 million were individual.
The bottom 50 % paid 2.25% of the taxes, so the bottom 50% only paid .025*2500000000/50000000 = $1.25 each At the other end, the top 1% paid 36.73% of the taxes, so the top 1% paid $918 each. The next 4% paid 137 dollars each. I could go on, but you get the picture (or not "For the true believer, no proof is necessary and no disproof possible")
The rover teams directly employed 419 people and hundreds of contractors, according to the news conferences. Let's also think of the hundreds of businesses, from mining refiners to coffee shops, who received direct or indirect capital from these teams.
You obviously never read Bastiat's That which is seen and that which is not seen or you would have never have claimed that this is a benefit.
New world to conquer, huh? Well ask yourself WHY your aforemention examples went exploring. Answer - ECONOMIC BENEFIT. They didn't do it for some airy fairy destiny of mankind thing. They were in it for the money. SO lets look at the ECONOMIC benefit of going to Mars. Your examples are not even vaguely relevant due to transportation costs.
A more relevant (but still not adequate) example is manned exploration of the moon. WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT did manned exploration of the moon bring? Answer none. There isn't anything on the moon that is worth the cost of getting there and back again. Like Mars, the moon consists of rocks and dirt.
We have an adequate supply of rocks and dirt right here. If you want to explore rocks and dirt in a challenging environment go to Antartica. It is thousands of times cheaper to get there than to go into space, and it has AIR. Yet no one wants to colonize it because there isn't anything there that is of economic value. Going to Mars is just a giant boondoggle to keep engineers employed by the government so that they won't vote for people who want to cut government spending.
Well, I can think of several ways to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. As long as NASA is around, they will continue to justify their existence and, in the process, do some good technology development.
As long as people (taxpayers) are not being FORCED to pay for it, I have no objection to space exploration. As far as technology development goes - I disagree there too. You assume that the technology would not have been developed if it weren't for the space program. This isn't really true. If you have never read Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen" I suggest you do so. He does a lot better job of explaining lost opportunity cost than I do.
2.5 billion is peanuts compared to what obama has stolen from the US Treasury.
2.5 billion peanuts here and 2.5 billion peanuts there and pretty soon you have your own jar of Obama peanut butter.
Uhhh Nooo -- that was not the mission here and the scientists know it.
The question is who is going to explore it
No One
and what kind of society will evolve from this exploration.
None
Bonus Hint--Look at how exploration and settlement evolved in the Western hemisphere.
Bigger Bonus Hint: There were already people living in the Western Hemisphere when the Europeans came. There are none on Mars because the environment on Mars cannot sustain life.
MONEY Queen Isabella actually said "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" Actually what she said was probably "Muéstrame el dinero." Earth's explorers were motivated by profit. Unfortunately there isn't ay material which is worth the transportation cost. The apollo program cost $100 billion in today's dollars. The program returned 843 lb of moon material (rocks and dirt). This is the most that they could bring back. If they could have brought back more they would have. This works out to $118,623,962.04/pound for samples of rocks and dirt. And this is just for raw materials. They didn't have to process it, just scoop it up. The most expensive material that I know of is plutonium, and the last time NASA bought some from the Russians they paid about $3.5 million a KG or about $1.6 million a pound. Mars being over 100 times further away than the moon, transportation costs would be comensurately more. If you want some special rocs and dirt I happen to have some real bargains that I can let you have for $50 a lb. (10 lb minimum) GUARANTEED TO HAVE THE SAME ELEMENTS AS MOON OR MARS DIRT!
GPS did not come from NASA research. I should know since my Dad invented it.
Did your Dad invent the rocket to put a payload in a 10,000 mile high orbit?
Well, duh. Of course. There are other reasons, population pressure, persecution of certain groups that are willing to uproot and move off world. But, yes, the pursuit of wealth is the most important. I could argue about the economic benefits of exploring Mars but I will not make a case for saddling the taxpayer with this cost.
A more relevant (but still not adequate) example is manned exploration of the moon. WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT did manned exploration of the moon bring? Answer none.
Not much, yet. But you cannot be serious if you believe there will NEVER be a way to make money on the moon. Helium 3 is obtainable on the moon and very rare on earth. Unlimited, cheap energy is also available on the moon in the form of unfiltered sunlight. The moon will be a staging area for further space exploration and, possibly, a source of fuel for those explorers. Certain products, using these comparative advantages and low gravity, might be manufactured on the moon.
Antartica(sic)...is thousands of times cheaper to get there than to go into space, and it has AIR. Yet no one wants to colonize it because there isn't anything there that is of economic value.
There might be oil there, and then, I think, you will see things change.
As far as technology development goes - I disagree there too.
You are putting words in my mouth. Read my post. I said they are doing good technology development. I didn't say that the private sector couldn't do it cheaper, better, faster. I think they could. I would like to see NASA closed down in its present form.
And of no value except as a curiosity. There currently exists no use for it.
Unlimited, cheap energy is also available on the moon in the form of unfiltered sunlight.
First off sunlight filtered or not is NOT as unlimited energy source, but rather a low density energy source compared to fossil, hydro and nuclear. Secondly, how do you get it from there to where it's needed?
The moon will be a staging area for further space exploration and, possibly, a source of fuel for those explorers. Certain products, using these comparative advantages and low gravity, might be manufactured on the moon.
Provided that future space exploration is feasible and desirable. This is kind of pie in the sky bye and bye
I didn't say that the private sector couldn't do it cheaper, better, faster. I think they could.
Sory, I thought that is what you meant. On this we agree.
Ok, I guess those buying it at recent prices of up to $2,000/litre are really getting taken advantage of. Better let them know it is worthless. BTW, there was no use for plutonium a century ago either. It was worthless. What is it worth today?
...sunlight filtered or not is NOT as unlimited energy source...how do you get it from there to where it's needed?
Yes, sunlight is an unlimited, constant, cheap source of energy. You are wrong. It will be needed on the moon for various manufacturing processes and life support. Read my previous posts again. This cheap, unlimited, constant source of energy might help produce a comparative advantage for some manufacturing processes on the moon.
Provided that future space exploration is feasible and desirable.
I'm glad you weren't anywhere near the Wright Cycle shop in Dayton in 1901 to tell the owners that wind tunnel they were building was a complete waste of time and money. Everybody then knew that powered flight was "not feasible" and hardly "desirable".
Yeah!
Just think how many fat-ass do-nothing union-thug early-retirement pensions that would fund.
Apparently they do have some video of the landing being queued up for later download. HD to boot, but only 8fps.
Curiosity is looking for water.
If that is true, then why did he think he’d make it to the Indian islands?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.