Posted on 01/16/2006 9:53:39 AM PST by Paul Ross
> Feel free to open up your personal resourses to make your dream come true.
I do. They're called "taxes."
> There isn't any private space industry, lunar colonies, manned mars station, because there isn't any benefit to it.
Uh-huh. And how much money did the US governemtn spend on Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase? How much money does a young couple spend on a baby?
Short-sighted luddism does not become a conservative. Leave that for the DUmmies.
> Unfortunately, we can't do that to the NASA managers, so they persist like all governmental agencies sucking their share of the lifeblood out of the ecomonomy
An impressive display of ignorance. NASA is the one agency that more than pays for itself. You want to do away with NASA? Fine. Watch your taxes grow and your military and technological base fall behind.
I do. They're called "taxes."
The profound economic ignorance demonstrated by this statement simply leaves me speechless except to say taxes aren't your personal resources.
Uh-huh. And how much money did the US governemtn spend on Alaska and the Louisiana Purchase? How much money does a young couple spend on a baby?
Total non-sequitors. Alaska and the Louisiana purchase had demonstrable value at the time. At the time New Orleans wasn't a rat hole of welfare parasites. Space has nothing but radiation, rocks, ice, gas, and most of all vast distances and "astronomical" transportation costs.
Are you seriously comparing spending money on a baby to having your money robbed at gunpoint to fuel someone else's fantasy in space? Totally irrelevant I suggest you attend dragoncon. It's a lot cheaper and most of them realize that it's fantasy.
And don't get me started on all fo the so-called innovations at NASA. NASA innovates just like any other government agency the maximum cost for the minimum result. Unless you think that really large rocket engines are a real boon to our society which you probably do
> Alaska and the Louisiana purchase had demonstrable value at the time.
And so does space exploration.
> Space has nothing but radiation, rocks, ice, gas, and most of all vast distances and "astronomical" transportation costs.
Yes. The Universe, in other words. You ignore it at your, and your childrens, peril.
> Are you seriously comparing spending money on a baby to having your money robbed at gunpoint to fuel someone else's fantasy in space?
No. I'm comparing the costs and potentials of a baby with the costs and potentials of exploring the universe.
> Unless you think that really large rocket engines are a real boon to our society which you probably do
Wow. How do you manage to get through a day with that astonishing level of ignorance?
I'm just going to sit back and gloat, knowing that those who oppose manned space exploration are at the lowest level of understanding of just what's going on in the world.
Sorry to be a heretic to your religion, but the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money. Something that I don't have a problem with as long as it's the space heads' money that is being wasted. But Like all good socialists, space heads think that their own pipe dreams are so important that the ignorant masses (ie those who don't think the way that they do) should be forced to support their space fantasies.
You really should try dragoncon there are a lot of people there who think like you do. You would probably like it.
> the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money.
Let us know when you want to debate honestly.
LOL Now anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. You don't want debate; you want agreement. Waste your own money on NASA. Hell, you probably believe NASA's press releases about how great they are. How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it? And now we know that Mars is made of rocks and dirt. (but really exciting rocks and dirt)
> Now anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.
No. thosewho say dishonest things, like "the fact is that space exploration is a waste of money," are dishonest.
> How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it?
WRONG. Three rovers launched, three rovers landed, three rovers successful.
If you can't even be trusted to deal with simple, basic facts like this, any other opinion you express on the value of space exploration is in serious doubt.
The Space Elevator has the largest potential for expanding human civilization. In fact, it is the first real step in that direction while silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless. Until we conquer our gravity well and can practically and economically lift the necessary heavy equipment and materials into space, human civilization will not expand even to our moon. Construct the Space Elevator and you open up the entire it solar system to the first nation with the vision to construct it. No one will ever catch up to that nation in terms of exploiting space.
Then we can get to the good stuff like constructing a Dyson sphere or ring.
And if China is the first to construct a space elevator (see my previous post), we're in big trouble.
The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to establish a stable base at the lunar pole.
> The Space Elevator has the largest potential for expanding human civilization.
The SE is a *tool*. It is not a goal.
> silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless.
True. That's why nobody is seriously discussing "silly trips to the moon and back to gather pretty rocks and take pretty pictures is mostly pointless." Those who are not completely ignorant are discussing the moon as a source of vast income, specifically in the energy market, and secondarily tourism and eventual colonization.
> Then we can get to the good stuff like constructing a Dyson sphere or ring.
Not for several thousand years, probably, if then. Ringworlds are beyond any known or even conceived structural material (tensile strengths *millions* of time stronger than nanotubes needed), and of course the "Dyson Sphere" is not what Dyson described (and not is it feasible).
But it would be about a million times cheaper to get the anorthosite into space where we want it if we mined it and luanched it from the moon to orbiting construction stations.
> The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to establish a stable base at the lunar pole.
The first people to construct a space elevator will be the first people to discover true vulnerability to hostile fire.
I'm aware of the timeframe involved with even starting a Dyson Sphere. However, it is a direction into which we may want to take a step.
> I'm aware of the timeframe involved with even starting a Dyson Sphere.
A Dyson Cloud (a more accurate description than "Sphere," as "Sphere" implies a solid shell) can be begun right now, with a lunar metals infrastructure. O'Neill colonies are the first step.
Wrong. Not counting the early failures the more recent ones are:
1 Polar lander failed
2 climate observer failed (orbit only)
3 observer failed (orbit only)
So one lander and two orbiters failed in the last six NASA missions to Mars Ie those to mars since 92. I didn't notice the taxpayers getting any of their mony back. Now at a cost of about $300,000,000 each not counting the infrastructure burden I'd say those "purty pitchers" of Martian rocks and dirt came at quite a cost
>>WRONG. Three rovers launched, three rovers landed, three rovers successful
>Wrong. Not counting the early failures the more recent ones are:
1 Polar lander failed
2 climate observer failed (orbit only)
3 observer failed (orbit only)
You continue your long trend of dishonesty. You original inaccurate line was: "How many tries did it take for them to get a couple of rovers on Mars two rovers for 5 tries or something like that wasn't it?"
None of the three failures you mentioend were rover missions. The rovers we've launched have *all* worked.
And if you're going to persist in calling me a liar, then you won't object to my calling you a liberal douche bag who wants to spend other people's money on something that he just "knows" is good for the collective.
Yes, the cloud is a better description. O'Neill colonies are a step along the way as is the exploitation of the resources of the moon and captured asteroids. But, in order to accomplish this we need the right tool - a space elevator. A worthy goal is the construction of that tool.
Hubble is old tech and hardly worth the trouble. Instead of trying to keep the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and the Hubble flying another year, another decade, we should accept the situation and move on. New hardware is already in procurement and is far more capable than this junk. Any funds dropped on these white elephants merely slows development of the new generation.
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.