Nasa worth it? (thread split)

[Niiro]

I agree with the sentiments that funding NASA (or rather, funding such research and intellectual endeavors) is a good thing, but I can't help but roll my eyes a bit when someone mentions how it (or anything) is going to allow us to escape a dying Earth or whatever some day. I don't believe manned space exploration will ever be feasible, much less worthwhile.

We could pollute Earth into a giant orbiting cesspool and it would still be infinitely more liveable than anything else we could ever hope to inhabit (which is a damn short list).

[Xantavia]

We can emphasize math and science without NASA. Asian nations do it just fine. Unfortunately, we cannot emphasize math and science while we're promising each and every kid by default that they are a pretty princess and can be whatever they want, no matter want, without any effort required. If we started throwing statistics and pay amounts to our children, and emphasized to them how much better life becomes with a steady paycheck and a good college education, we might get somewhere.

Good luck convincing today's youth that math and science are important in life. The amount of retards I've seen at work trying to sneak into Project X because "its like the best movie ever". Nobody wants to work hard for a future, they all think they will have the next viral video or make another Blair Witch movie or get picked for next season's Real World. And if you don't think like that I'm sure school is a living hell and you are getting bullied daily. I got out of school 20 years ago, and in the past few years I have honestly worried about the future, with kids like this as the base and idiots like Rush telling them what they want to hear.

[Sera]

Guardian's post about society's obsession with returning to the past was fantastic. The past sucked and we need to stop glorifying it and focus on the future and how we can make it awesome for everyone. I think refunding NASA would rule, but part of me also thinks we have a lot of stuff we need to spend money on first before we start committing tons of money to that. Let's bring our society into the present first.

But I'm torn because I really want food replicators. Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

[ronin sparthos]

But I'm torn because I really want food replicators. Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

Holodecks.

Every gamers dream.

[Alleya]

I'd rather have the matrix than a holodeck. The holodeck is all just forcefields and stuff right? So after a session of marathon holodeck sex, all those juices that were held up in forcefields.....splat. I don't want to spend the end of my vacation mopping up the holodeck.

[ronin sparthos]

I'd rather have the matrix than a holodeck. The holodeck is all just forcefields and stuff right? So after a session of marathon holodeck sex, all those juices that were held up in forcefields.....splat. I don't want to spend the end of my vacation mopping up the holodeck.

This is the future, the computer can clean up my splooge.

I'll be in my ready room with the sonic shower.

[Tajin]

With the way things are going (population growth, resources being wasted/polluted), down the road the winner might be the one that either has the better guns, or the way to get the fuck out of the earth.

Hell, Mars is around the corner waiting to be turned into Earth 2.0

[Sera]

I'd rather have the matrix than a holodeck. The holodeck is all just forcefields and stuff right? So after a session of marathon holodeck sex, all those juices that were held up in forcefields.....splat. I don't want to spend the end of my vacation mopping up the holodeck.

so YOUR fantasy DIDN'T include splooge cleaning robots? interesting...

[Tajin]

He said THE MATRIX, fucking hell l2movies...

[Correction]

Shit mod deleted my link.

Yes NASA is worth it and if you believe otherwise you're incredibly short-sighted.

[Greatguardian]

With the way things are going (population growth, resources being wasted/polluted), down the road the winner might be the one that either has the better guns, or the way to get the fuck out of the earth.

Hell, Mars is around the corner waiting to be turned into Earth 2.0

Mars has a long way to go before it's Human-friendly. Not only is the gravity (0.6G~) going to be a chronic health issue for any humans living there over an extended period of time, but the planet has a significantly weaker magnetic field than the Earth - exposing it to harmful cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is one of the more difficult issues to solve, too - people tend to underestimate the value and importance of our planet's awesome deflector shield.

[Ksandra]

Shit mod deleted my link.

Yes NASA is worth it and if you believe otherwise you're incredibly short-sighted.

fuck you, too. You had more stuff on Rush in that post, so I kept the rush stuff instead. cry me a river.

[Niiro]

Mars has a long way to go before it's Human-friendly. Not only is the gravity (0.6G~) going to be a chronic health issue for any humans living there over an extended period of time, but the planet has a significantly weaker magnetic field than the Earth - exposing it to harmful cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is one of the more difficult issues to solve, too - people tend to underestimate the value and importance of our planet's awesome deflector shield.

There's also the issue of like....not having an atmosphere, liquid water, or any organic matter, if the simple event of "daytime" wasn't already a fatal hazard.

If we actually somehow developed the capability to make an uninhabitable planet habitable we would have already long since developed the means to maintain the habitability of Earth.

[Callisto]

I think NASA would be more viable if more emphasis was put on lunar/near asteroid resource procurement rather than exploration/travel.

[Greatguardian]

I think NASA would be more viable if more emphasis was put on lunar/near asteroid resource procurement rather than exploration/travel.

The way things are now, this is true - people are only interested in investing in things that turn profits.

I simply have a fundamental moral problem with any business or personal entity claiming ownership over stellar bodies.

[Stanislaw]

The way things are now, this is true - people are only interested in investing in things that turn profits.

I simply have a fundamental moral problem with any business or personal entity claiming ownership over stellar bodies.

If I remember correctly, didn't almost all of Earth's rare mineral/ore/metal deposits come from meteorites because all 'heavy' metals went into the core when Earth was formed? So technically speaking we're already doing this, the only difference being it's not up in the sky anymore. It's basically the same principle as business/personal entity claiming ownership over land. That's what countries are, after all.

I think the issue then become where does one draw the line between what's okay and what's not. And that is a very difficult line to draw.

[Yugl]

I'll get back to other responses but a quick thought on GG's post and Cleverness's post (I tried a 430AM post and just said 'wtf is this shit' after I began writing).

It seems the ideas you propose are in conflict. Cleverness's response, "why not?", highlights the past achievements of NASA as justification for future funding. GG's post says the inability to enjoy farther space (Broken dreams) is why future funding will never occur. He further concludes that this is because of conservative thought. Yet, if we accept Cleverness's argument, it seems GG's label is false. It is not conservative thought precisely because the program has produced results in the past and the "dream" is in the past. Conservative thought would traditionally latch onto these 'outdated' ideas and promote continued investment. I would not necessarily tack this onto liberalism insofar as liberalism takes multiple forms.

[Greatguardian]

I'll get back to other responses but a quick thought on GG's post and Cleverness's post (I tried a 430AM post and just said 'wtf is this shit' after I began writing).

It seems the ideas you propose are in conflict. Cleverness's response, "why not?", highlights the past achievements of NASA as justification for future funding. GG's post says the inability to enjoy farther space (Broken dreams) is why future funding will never occur. He further concludes that this is because of conservative thought. Yet, if we accept Cleverness's argument, it seems GG's label is false. It is not conservative thought precisely because the program has produced results in the past and the "dream" is in the past. Conservative thought would traditionally latch onto these 'outdated' ideas and promote continued investment. I would not necessarily tack this onto liberalism insofar as liberalism takes multiple forms.

It's only a contradiction when you assume that the past that people are latching onto is the past that actually existed 60 years ago, and I've already addressed the fact that they're quite different things. What people want is the illusion of the past, whereas in the real past what people wanted was a future which later became an illusion. In both cases, people desired something that did not exist - the change now is in the focus of that desire.

[archibaldcrane]

I was watching Cowboys and Aliens the other day, and thought to myself "this is like 1870. These fuckers don't even have the internal combustion engine, and they'll be landing on the fucking MOON in less than 100 years."

And then I think, we landed on the fucking MOON and we didn't even have computers!

And now I'm like, we have computers, we can land on the moon, what have we really done in my lifetime?

Angry Birds?

Fuck.

[Rhyis.]

Without further space technological advancement we'll never be able to fend off the Ur-Quan armada.