Mission Worth It? (Is Mars California or Mt. Everest?)

National Review ^ | January 12, 2004 | Stanley Kurtz

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The day we stop exploring our frontiers is the day we cease to matter as a species.

The people along the sand
All turn and look one way.
They turn their back on the land.
They look at the sea all day.

As long as it takes to pass
A ship keeps raising its hull;
The wetter ground like glass
Reflects a standing gull.

The land may vary more;
But wherever the truth may be---
The water comes ashore,
And the people look at the sea.

They cannot look out far.
They cannot look in deep.
But when was that ever a bar
To any watch they keep?

"Neither Out Far Nor In Deep," by Robert Frost

[darth]

Colonizing the Moon, asteroids, and Mars is the 21st Century equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase....No, that's not right. The colonization of space dwarfs even the discovery of the New World. The amount of resources and land is enormous. The surface of the Moon is as big as the continent of Africa. Think diamonds, gold, platinum, and Helium 3 (which is worth far more than the other minerals). The nation that leads the land rush to space will dominate Earth just as Spain and the other colonizers did 500 years ago.

[biblewonk]

Who cares about a permanent moon base? Let em have it.

[farmfriend]

Did you see this one?

[RonHolzwarth]

I firmly believe that with our present technology, putting humans in space serves only a political agenda. I am not alone in that opinion.

Humans need so much baggage, such as food, water, and air to breath. Robotic systems do not require that, and they simply shut down until they are needed.

Space exploration utilizing robotics makes a LOT more sense, and robotics technology has a lot of earthly spin offs. For instance, I personally look forward to the day when very few, or NO miners ever work below the surface of the earth. There are many other examples where humans are required to do work that is very dangerous, and perhaps within our lifetime, could be replaced by robots.

Robotic technology, spurred by pressure of space exploration, will hasten that day.

They are expendable, and ONE WAY missions are the normal way to do things using robots. And, if/when there is a crash, we can only moan and groan about the financial loss, and not about the pain of those who have lost family members.

[RightWhale]

Interesting. Pro-space arguments are constantly being refined, but it's all forward-looking like corporate statements of anticipated earnings. Anti-space arguments are as old as dirt. Discussions of space development sound remarkably like goldbugs versus gold skeptics. If one doesn't participate in the gold market, there will be certainly nothing to gain or lose. Personal involvement in the space market can be minimal, send your $10 and it's not voluntary, or bid on a subcontract and maximize your participation.

[expatpat]

Spoken like a true Socialistic utopian social engineer

You must be short of logical ideas to have to use ad hominem attacks.

Your analogy is false -- it depends on the Mission being as useless and futile as building pyramids, which clashes with your penultimate paragraph.

I certainly did not try to justify the mission on the basis of salaries (I pointed out that I was neither pro or con), but tried to point out that 'waste' was the wrong term.

....could have been used much more efficiently and profitably by a private sector responding to market demand for the many goods and services that Americans actually want

Like cheap goods made in China, for example?

[Tribune7]

I think some vital computer advances occured during the race to the moon as well as advances in the use of materials.

I wonder if anyone has a list.

[RightWhale]

I certainly did not try to justify the mission on the basis of salaries

On the concept of salaries for high mucky-mucks in the space program:-- There are complaints that gov't programs like NASA are just welfare to otherwise unemployable engineers and scientists, but it might be noted that the engineers and scientists often could make more money elsewhere, so they are on the space program for other reasons. The janitor probably makes more.

[Gerasimov]

you might change your mind when Chinese energy based weapons based on the moon are pointed at the earth or our satellites.

We throw up SDS ... the moon is the next step beyond that.

[Shryke]

You are compeltely correct. In fact, the amount of technology that came out of our space programs is so large they alone justify the costs!

[Shryke]

You'd be surprised. There are people, like biblewonk, that think things like that are nothing to worry about. I surmise this is becuase they won't be around when it becomes a giant problem. Am I incorrect?

[Gerasimov]

BTW, for anyone who thinks it's as "cool" as my kids did, you can go to that deep impact site and have your name put on a CD ROM that will be crashed into that comet...

[biblewonk]

you might change your mind when Chinese energy based weapons based on the moon are pointed at the earth or our satellites.

So you think it is financially expedient to develop this kind of weapon with N hundred billion dollars? I'll take N hundred billion dollars worth of just about anything else first. And what are these evil Chinese going to do, zap our satellites and then get on a million ships and invade?

This and any other manned space ventures are waste of money!

[Gerasimov]

here ya go ... the most complete one I've seen:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the ping! :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

Who cares about a permanent moon base? Let em have it.

I care.

[RightWhale]

Who cares about a permanent moon base?

Reformulating in the normative . . .

Who ought to care about a permanent moon base

Ans. Anybody who cares about generations to come. Do you care?

[Redleg Duke]

Fortunately, there are enough people with vision to make up for the shortsighted.

[Tribune7]

Thanks