Space Program: what do I get?

[Xander]

It's common for people to question the merits of the space program. Why are we spending all this tax payer money shooting crap into space when there are so many problems here on our planet?

I'll save my rant on government organizations (for later--haha). Let a tiny fraction of the results from the space program speak for itself:

NASA researchers determined that cutting thin grooves across concrete runways reduces the risk of hydroplaning. The grooves improve tire friction performance in wet conditions by 200 to 300 percent. This innovation is used at airports and on streets and highways throughout the United States, helping to reduce highway accidents by as much as 85 percent. Guess how many lives that has and will save...

With the help of Hubble Space Telescope technology, biopsies can be performed without a scalpel. Technology developed for monitoring changes in the Earth's atmosphere is now being used for the early detection of breast cancer.

Some five million Americans suffer from "hardening of the arteries" (atherosclerosis), the single biggest cause of heart disease and related ailments. Until recently, heart bypass surgery was the main treatment for serious cases. Now, a "cool laser" developed by NASA solves the problem with a relatively non-invasive procedure.

Others:

CATScan
MRI
laser technology
satellites (GPS, telecommunication, environmental monitoring, farming and fishing, forest and ocean management, meteorology, map making, etc.)
hydroponics
cordless appliances (cell phone, drill)
smoke detectors
water filtration
heart monitors/pacemakers
portable X-ray machines
freeze-dried food and concentrated baby food
more (http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html)


All you need to know is that for every dollar the US has spent on the space program, an estimated $7 has been returned to the economy in the form of a new product or service. But the real value cannot be calculated since dividends are continuous and exponential (we get permanent returns on investment). At the very least, the thing you're looking at right now (your monitor/computer) is a direct byproduct of the space program. Computers used to be the size of supermarkets. They couldn't shoot that into space, so they needed to make computers smaller. Bam! The microprocessor. ...humanity enters a new age of civilization. "Tiny" innovations from the space program have spawned into many multi-billion dollar industries. I can go on and on, but I'll stop and let you guys discuss.

Here's a database. Search for yourself:
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinselect.html


As for funding the program with tax payer money, luckily the talent at NASA recognize the terrible inefficiencies of government, and have been pushing for privatization of space. There's actually a documentary coming out soon on this very topic (which I'm anxiously waiting for).

[wordsmith]

It honestly never occurred to me to question the merits of the space program.

[dacrunkest]

If it weren't for the space program, we wouldn't have Tang :) . Besides, you gotta give props to astronauts...

[beeblebrox]

It honestly never occurred to me to question the merits of the space program.

for a second there, I thought that the thread made a reference a Space Camp which was referenced in Stranger than Fiction

[dongle]

I agree a lot of technology has come out of the space program although there is a little debate as to exactly what was due to what. But even no new technology came out of it, even if it didnt pay for itself, even if poor american taxpayers didnt get anything out of it, I would still argue it's a very worthwile venture for us as a civilazation to be undertaking.

I think my biggest concern with society right now is that it is stagnant. The earth is full, there is nothing left to explore, no new land to claim, no new frontiers to colonize. The last 200 years have been radically different than the past 10,000. There is no where left to go. So what do we do now, we fight and squabble over who owns what, who gets what, who is allowed to do what, etc. Now things certainly werent perfect before the earth filled up, but there was always that allure of uncharted lands and new opportunities. I realize there was fighting, slaverly, piracy, anarchy and a host of other issues associated with exploration and frontier living so I'm sure people wont agree with me here. But I really believe that you need to grow to survive. Whether it be a business, a life form, or a society. And we are not growing. Our population is growing, but thats analagous to fattening rather than expanding and is actually way more harmful than anything else.

I realize I small base on the moon with 3 people stationed there is not going to change anything on earth. And yes, NASA may spend 3 billion in taxpayer money and poor old taxpayer may not get anything back. But so what, you have to start somewhere. I dont really care who pays for it as long as someone does. As soon as someone figures out how to turn a profit in space then it will really explode in the private sector. But that's a ways off still and until then it's really up to the government to get something moving.

Also let's put things in perspective here, NASA's budget is like $15 billion a year give or take out of a yearly budget of several trillion. We could eliminate NASA entirely and not a sole in America would notice an economic difference. Similarly, we could double or triple NASA's budget without much difference to anything.

I swear sometimes the American taxpayer is like Bill Gates shopping the clearance items at Macy's. You're rich, what difference does it make if you save $5 on those jeans!?!?

I vote we eliminate the billions of dollars in subsidies we give to the oil companies each year since they made more money in the past two years than any company from any country in the history of mankind and divert it to NASA instead.

[Syracuse]

for a second there, I thought that the thread made a reference a Space Camp which was referenced in Stranger than Fiction
Awesome Movie. Maggie Gyllenhal is the perfect gf in it.

[cache]

I think privatization is a good idea, and already producing results. The Ansari-X Project(I think it was called), and now the next generation of that have a lot of support, and reading about Amazon's Blue Horizon(I can't remember the exact name) is pretty exciting.

But like with most things, I believe in the free market. When there is a great enough need, the benefits of private space exploration and colonization will drive its growth.

In the meantime, I think you need NASA to keep the fires burning, so to speak.



I think my biggest concern with society right now is that it is stagnant. The earth is full, there is nothing left to explore, no new land to claim, no new frontiers to colonize. The last 200 years have been radically different than the past 10,000. There is no where left to go. So what do we do now, we fight and squabble over who owns what, who gets what, who is allowed to do what, etc. Now things certainly werent perfect before the earth filled up, but there was always that allure of uncharted lands and new opportunities.

I agree with most of your post except this part. 5K years ago, I don't think the average person was thinking abuot foreign lands. And heck, how many people today care about "the allure of uncharted lands." As long as people have a place to live and food to eat, everything else is just details. I do agree that with population growth, places to live and food to eat may be getting slimmer, but in general...

[Syracuse]

I agree with most of your post except this part. 5K years ago, I don't think the average person was thinking abuot foreign lands. And heck, how many people today care about "the allure of uncharted lands." As long as people have a place to live and food to eat, everything else is just details. I do agree that with population growth, places to live and food to eat may be getting slimmer, but in general...
Yeah it isn't really something that started until about 500 years ago, exploring the world I mean. Ship building technology finally reached the point where long voyages were possible, and the entire world was charted soon after that. Same will happen with space. May take a few thousand years but eventually space ship technology will reach the point where it's possible to travel to other planets. Too bad we're not alive during either time period because it must be exciting. Instead the top story of today is a war in Iraq, which is just depressing.

[wordsmith]

If humans were capable of colonizing the universe, there'd doubtless just be even MORE war.

I'm not a sci fi person remotely, and the ony sci fi type program I've ever liked was Firefly, and, yeah, it's an imaginative piece of fiction, but I think it's food for thought that wherever humans go, conflict follows.

[cache]

Yeah it isn't really something that started until about 500 years ago, exploring the world I mean. Ship building technology finally reached the point where long voyages were possible, and the entire world was charted soon after that. Same will happen with space. May take a few thousand years but eventually space ship technology will reach the point where it's possible to travel to other planets. Too bad we're not alive during either time period because it must be exciting. Instead the top story of today is a war in Iraq, which is just depressing.

No, this isn't quite what I meant...even 500 years ago during the Age of Exploration, that exploration affected very few people. Most peope just wanted to live their lives and survive the plague, they didn't care about spices from India or gold from Mexico...

If humans were capable of colonizing the universe, there'd doubtless just be even MORE war.

I'm not a sci fi person remotely, and the ony sci fi type program I've ever liked was Firefly, and, yeah, it's an imaginative piece of fiction, but I think it's food for thought that wherever humans go, conflict follows.

Ansolutely agree. You know there would be a planet made of diamonds and one made of oil that would be fought over, and don't forget about "God's solar system," the new promised land....

[and1grad]

Yes but wont we have evolved beyond fighting by then and just resolve things with contests like who can finish a rubix cube first or maybe some virtual reality chess match?

[hotdog36]

Yes but wont we have evolved beyond fighting by then and just resolve things with contests like who can finish a rubix cube first or maybe some virtual reality chess match?

I agree. I think that in the future humans will have to advance beyond wars if we are to survive. There's that well known quote from Einstein: "I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War four will be fought with sticks and stones." If weapons keep advancing, it's only a matter of time before a weapon destroys all civilized life on Earth. Related, Stephen Hawking was in the news recently talking about how humans need to colonize other planets soon, or risk becoming extinct due to an asteroid hitting the Earth, or nuclear disaster, etc. He stated that we should create a matter-anti-matter propulsion system so that we can travel at near the speed of light:
http://www.waltontribune.com/story.lasso?ewcd=7e067f772624ae25

[hotdog36]

Just to add to that last post, the cool thing with physics is that it will take 6 years to get to the nearest star at just below the speed of light, according to Hawking. However, to the people on board, it will seem a lot faster (as the passage of time changes for them). So if they were to blast off from earth, it might only be 20 seconds to get to the nearest star from their passage of time.

Edit: I'm not sure about the 20 seconds, I'm not a physicist, so don't call that into question. It's probably a bit longer. But at the speed of light, it is instantaneous.

[cache]

Related, Stephen Hawking was in the news recently talking about how humans need to colonize other planets soon, or risk becoming extinct due to an asteroid hitting the Earth, or nuclear disaster, etc. He stated that we should create a matter-anti-matter propulsion system so that we can travel at near the speed of light:
http://www.waltontribune.com/story.lasso?ewcd=7e067f772624ae25


Sure. First thing next year...We'll time travel while we're at it...

[WorkInProgress]

Just to add to that last post, the cool thing with physics is that it will take 6 years to get to the nearest star at just below the speed of light, according to Hawking. However, to the people on board, it will seem a lot faster (as the passage of time changes for them). So if they were to blast off from earth, it might only be 20 seconds to get to the nearest star from their passage of time.

Edit: I'm not sure about the 20 seconds, I'm not a physicist, so don't call that into question. It's probably a bit longer. But at the speed of light, it is instantaneous.

I don't get how that works. Why wouldn't it seem like 6 years if it IS 6 years?

Also, I thought we weren't superclose to getting something to go the speed of light.

Man, it's been a long time since I've studied this stuff.

[hotdog36]

I don't get how that works. Why wouldn't it seem like 6 years if it IS 6 years?

Also, I thought we weren't superclose to getting something to go the speed of light.

Man, it's been a long time since I've studied this stuff.

Here's a wikipedia link on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dila tion_combined-effect_tests

The part on 'time dilation and space flight' describes the physics. Also, we're not close to achieving speed of light travel, but I guess Stephen Hawking was just throwing a bone to scientists on what they should be working on to achieve it.

[dongle]

I agree with most of your post except this part. 5K years ago, I don't think the average person was thinking abuot foreign lands. And heck, how many people today care about "the allure of uncharted lands." As long as people have a place to live and food to eat, everything else is just details. I do agree that with population growth, places to live and food to eat may be getting slimmer, but in general...

true an individual person may never be interested in exploration. But expansion in general is always on the minds of governments, businesses, even families. 10000 years ago, nomadic tribes were wandering around africa and eventually found europe and asia. 5000 years ago the egyptian, aztec, mayan etc empires were expanding in their respective parts of the world. 2000 years ago the romans were expanding and building and developing all parts of europe and northern africa while the "cant remember" dynasty was expanding in china. Now of course there was fighting and poverty and disease and all that but there was little shortage of materials. These empires flourished on a huge wealth of metal deposits, timber, farm land, and oceans, and when they ran out, they moved. It doesnt work that way anymore. Empires have been replaced by countries, with confined borders, and limited resources.

What would be nice is if we could figure out a way of expanding and growing without exploitation and domination of the things we discover. But I'm a dreamer....

[cache]

true an individual person may never be interested in exploration. But expansion in general is always on the minds of governments, businesses, even families. 10000 years ago, nomadic tribes were wandering around africa and eventually found europe and asia. 5000 years ago the egyptian, aztec, mayan etc empires were expanding in their respective parts of the world. 2000 years ago the romans were expanding and building and developing all parts of europe and northern africa while the "cant remember" dynasty was expanding in china. Now of course there was fighting and poverty and disease and all that but there was little shortage of materials. These empires flourished on a huge wealth of metal deposits, timber, farm land, and oceans, and when they ran out, they moved. It doesnt work that way anymore. Empires have been replaced by countries, with confined borders, and limited resources.

What would be nice is if we could figure out a way of expanding and growing without exploitation and domination of the things we discover. But I'm a dreamer....

Good point here. It is like sharing a backseat with an older brother....first he pushes a little on to your side, so you move over....then he pushes a little further...and keeps going until you are out of space to move over to and are smooshed up against the window.

I do think we are smooshed against the window right now...

[dongle]

The part on 'time dilation and space flight' describes the physics. Also, we're not close to achieving speed of light travel, but I guess Stephen Hawking was just throwing a bone to scientists on what they should be working on to achieve it.


it's true that time slows down the faster you move relative to stationary objects. But of course there is no such thing as true stationary, only stationary relative to something else. The problem with this and space travel though is that you have to be going very very close to the speed of light for the time slowdown to be at all significant. If you wanted to get to a star 6 years away in 20 seconds, you would have to be traveling at like 99.99% the speed of light. This is virtually imposible since your mass increases with velocity as well. Since the mass increases, the energy required to continue acceleration also increases. Reaching the speed of light would require infinite energy and the spacecraft would have infinite mass and time would be completely frozen.

[dongle]

you know it actually suprises me how readily available so many resources are to us today. If you think about it, the surface of the earth only has 150 million square kilometers of land. That sounds like a lot I know but there are 6 billion people. That means there is only 25 square meters per person of land on this planet RIGHT NOW. That's crazy, think of all the food and coal, and lumber, and metal, and cloth, and whatever other resources we each use on a daily basis. 25 meters is not much space to get all that stuff from

[Xander]

Maybe I'm a sap for all things related to our future, but the spirit of exploration is very much alive! Plus we have to remember that the great majority of conflicts (and human suffering in general) comes from scarcity of resources.

On a philosophical tangent, to note, expansion into the stars is the only good measure we have of preserving the human species. Natural disaster, disease, a giant meteor, etc., could take us out with a blink. The more further we expand (colonize) the safer our species becomes.

If you take away scarcity of resources, what is there to fight for? We've seen science fiction become science fact (space ships, cell phones, holograms, robots, etc.) and we're on the doorstep of many more (invisibility cloak, flying cars, etc.). Perhaps our most significant upcoming milestone is our near-ability to synthesize (create) any element. It wont be like the "replicator" from Star Trek (not at first, anyway), but science wise, we're very close. When that becomes efficient/cheap...

But I absolutely do not buy humans being inherently conflict-philic. I'm aware of our flaws, but we've done far more good than harm (we continue to grow, increase our knowledge of the universe, enhance the standard of living, etc.). Many people focus on the "we're just going to all die in nuclear war!" mentality. I subscribe to the "even if there was global nuclear war, how do we recover from that?" camp. Call it guarded optimism...

And traveling at fast speeds is another thread topic... haha. It's such a huge subject, and there are many misconceptions. i.e. if you went 100% the speed of light, it would take 6 years to get to an object 6 light years away, not 20 seconds. ;)

And Earth's resources aren't only located on the surface of the planet. Factor in the third dimension.


....but.... does anyone think the space program is a waste of money?

[hotdog36]

And traveling at fast speeds is another thread topic... haha. It's such a huge subject, and there are many misconceptions. i.e. if you went 100% the speed of light, it would take 6 years to get to an object 6 light years away, not 20 seconds.

Sure, it would take 6 years from the perspective of someone on Earth. But if you went 100% the speed of light, it would take significantly less than 6 years from your perspective. Time slows down for you as you approach the speed of light.

[KraheCrowbird]

http://ksc.nasatechnology.com/resources/spinoffs/spinoffs.asp

Here's plenty of good reasons^ ...and stop complaining about NASA, they're really the only government organization that's doing anything right these days. Besides there are plenty of far more useless programs that are wasting tax payer's money. ...*cough*...welfare....mmm pardon me.

[dongle]

I think Mars is going to be big. Once we get there and set something up. The moon is a good stepping stone but with no atmosphere, limited if any water, and very few heavy elements, there's not much that can happen there. Mars on the other hand would be another earth if it were a little bigger and could retain oxygen in its atmosphere for long periods of time. But even as it is now, you have a thin atmosphere with plenty of water and metals. You wouldnt even need a bulky space suit to wander around on the surface. Granted you still need a suit of some type but there is a pressurized atmosphere so it isnt like the surface of the moon.

Actually I'm not a 100% sure on the water thing. Any water or ice on the surface would evaporate into space but I think scientists are convinced there is ice under the surface, maybe I'm wrong, I really cant remember.

[WorkInProgress]

Sure, it would take 6 years from the perspective of someone on Earth. But if you went 100% the speed of light, it would take significantly less than 6 years from your perspective. Time slows down for you as you approach the speed of light.

Thank about what this says. Time slowing down = taking less time to get somewhere? This makes no sense. I think you mean that a person's internal clock/awareness of time doesn't/don't pass time as quickly when travel is that fast, not that time, objectively, slows down.

[hotdog36]

Thank about what this says. Time slowing down = taking less time to get somewhere? This makes no sense. I think you mean that a person's internal clock/awareness of time doesn't/don't pass time as quickly when travel is that fast, not that time, objectively, slows down.

Are you assuming that 'objective' time means from the point of view of the Earth? Because from Earth, that trip would take 6 years. But from the confines of the rocket, time will slow down.

There's something called the 'twin paradox', where if one twin brother took a high speed rocket trip into outer space at almost the speed of light, and the other stayed on Earth, when they met in the future, the twin who stayed on Earth would be significatly older than the one who went on the rocket trip, who would still be quite young, even if it was 50 years in the future from the perspective of the twin who stayed on Earth. This is because travelling at such high speeds caused the passage of time to slow down for the twin on the rocket (as well as any fresh fruit, for example, which might not spoil on the rocket). Even if you are driving on the freeway, time is slowing down for you, albeit very slightly.

Edit: Another way to think about it is this: If you were able to drive alongside a rocket travelling at near the speed of light (assume for a second that the quirks of special relativity didn't affect you), and you looked in the window of the rocket, you would see the crew onboard frozen in time, and not moving, as time has slowed down for them.

[Xander]

I just want to mention for anyone not familiar with this stuff that speed-of-light travel is impossible. We'll never get anywhere near it, but there are ways around it (which should be in a different thread as this one is about the merits of the space program).

It's true that the quicker you go, the faster time around you becomes. Time doesn't slow down for you, though. Two atomic clocks were synchronized before an Apollo mission launch. The Apollo astronauts traveled faster than anyone had gone before that time. When they returned, the Apollo clock was slower... physical evidence (if theory isn't enough for you).

It's surprising how many people support the space program, or are entirely indifferent. I don't like the "there are worse things we can spend money on" mentality, though. We should only do things that actually benefit us, and not because it's "less bad" than alternatives. :p

[wordsmith]

Maybe it's just the people I'm around, but I've never really experienced much by way of people bitching about the money spent on the space program, which leads me to believe the majority of the people I'm around are either indifferent to it or don't have a problem with it.

I can see why people WOULD bitch about the expenditure and question the legitimacy, but I've just never really heard it.