Would most Americans support it?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by ninja08hippie, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    I'm curious. With the entire world watching as NASA pulled off the most ambitious space mission in history with a budget less than what the military spends in a day, would the country get behind a race to the moon?

    The political rift created by bullshit politics is what is making the government not work, being able to root for them as one big team would help ease the gap, push a lot of money into science and technology, and show off the country to the rest of the world.

    NASA is more than capable of doing it, as is Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan. If the president challenges the world to a friendly race, I'm sure at least China would accept the challenge.

    The USA keeps telling the rest of the world how great it is, but has been best known in the past decade or so for unpopular wars, economic collapse, plutocracy... Give us something to show the country in the global spotlight in a positive way. The entire world would watch a race to the moon, and I think all countries involved would benefit economically, scientifically, and culturally. Some of our greatest innovations happened specifically because of the race with the Soviet Union, and our economy benefited as well.
     
  2. biker061

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    405
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    i would get behind more manned space flight, something with a destination in mind. i guess the space station is still manned space flight but doesn't seem to be very exciting. more trips to the moon and longer visits there might capture the imagination the way it did when i was a kid!
     
  3. Super

    Super New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2011
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Way up north
    NASA is supposedly planning a trip to mars soon. Will that do it for you?
     
  4. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    As far as I know they aren't planning it. I'm counting on right wing paranoia to push for a NASA Mars mission after China lands on the moon. Luckily, they are planning the trip. :)
     
  5. backcheck64

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Missouri
    It's be a one way trip. Current technology does not allow for the return trip. I seriously doubt they are planning a one way trip.
     
  6. HardRocker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    5,719
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, that's the state of the technology right now. I think it's a mistake to bypass the Moon and go straight to Mars. Mars will wait. You know, if we could establish a Moon base, maybe excavating underground dwelling near the water at the south pole, we could finally get enough He3 to crank up fusion energy to power the place. Not to mention more than enough sunlight energy. The water is there, so hydroponics for food is possible. There's plenty of oxygen to be cracked. If a series of unmanned supply cyclers like barges continuously made routine trips swinging around Earth and back around the Moon dropping off parts, we could assemble a Mars launcher there.

    Can you imagine how little fuel it would take to launch a massively loaded Mars mission from 1/6th g gravity? Meanwhile new spacesuit technology, and survival techniques we learn on the Moon would make the first Mars mission much more likely to be successful.

    Launches to go mine the asteroids could eventually be developed and we'd never have to dig another hole in the earth. Everything we need on the periodic chart is in the asteroid belt. Every kind of volatile we need for fuel and water too is in the gas giants.

    This is the kind of thing SpaceX and companies like them can start taking over. If we could just get started, it would grow exponentially over the next few generations. We need to get into a position to start planning hundreds of years ahead instead of just decades.

    I'm all in.
     
  7. surreal_thoughts

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Urgh...I don't and can't follow politics...I find it to be laced with so many lies and false hopes...and this is on all levels.

    Far as NASA goes...I was interested in the whole Mars exploration in the beginning but my interest in that has died down. I also don't think we will send anyone to the moon...at least for quite a while seeing as there are no active space shuttles and last I heard budgets for proposed shuttles are not sufficient enough and there are many ideas on the table for the next shuttle...if it ever happens...
     
  8. CosmicEye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    VA
    Unfortunatly NASA costs too much. It sucks but I think its just a postponement for them to save money for the unstable economy. I think, or hope, in a few decades NASA will explode into popularity.
     
  9. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    I disagree, the rover cost $300 million dollars over ten years, the military spent $900 billion last year. So on average, 3 hours of running the military could have funded the Curiosity rover. I see no reason we can't use a day or so's worth of military spending to fund a trip to the moon. NASA already has the know-how, the rockets, the life support systems, everything that was expensive to "figure out" in the 60s, they already know. They just need to design, build, test, and launch a vehicle with all of the components together, based on their history of successful robotic landings in the past few decades, they can easily do it for a fraction of the cost of the race with the USSR.

    Really the only difference between landing a man on the moon and a rover on mars is the life support system, the return vehicle, and a few extra backup systems.

    I think the USA does better when the rest of the world respects us. You know how the rest of the world sees the USA in a scientific light? I'll give you a hint, climate change denial and creationism in schools isn't a good thing ;)
     
    #9 ninja08hippie, Aug 17, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  10. backcheck64

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Missouri
    We could litterally cut military spending in half and it'd still be 6 times the rest of the world combined (yes, we are currently at 12 times the rest of the world). Insane.
     
  11. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    Yeah, we do have the highest military budget of any country in the world compared to our GDP other than Saudi Arabia. Why can't we put some of that money to a constructive cause? Hell, wouldn't the military benefit from NASA perfecting space travel? The US seems to want to police the world, wouldn't it be easier if we could get from the USA to australia in 10 minutes?
     
  12. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    The plutocracy purposefully puts most government items in terms of billions or trillions because the human brain didn't evolve to easily comprehend numbers so big. We evolved using small number so that it what our brain does best, so whenever I hear a number given by the government, I always scale it down to a more manageable level.

    Say the US budget is 3.5 trillion dollars (2011 budget), and the average middle class family runs on 100K (2 parents each making 50K.) So the government runs on 35 million times as much money as you do, so take every number the government says and divide by 35 million to see if it's reasonable.

    So if you ran the government on your own household budget of 100K, was (300million / 35 million) $8 to fund the mars rover worth it? Would it be worth it to maybe spend $50 to send a man to the moon?

    Is (900billion / 35million) $26K an acceptable budget for the military if your entire country takes $100K to run?

    Seems to me like some money should be shifted to science and exploration to me.
     
    #12 ninja08hippie, Aug 17, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
  13. backcheck64

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Missouri
    Not just GDP...total overall is 12X more than the rest of the world. WHY, I'll tell you, the GOPs buddies making military hardware, companies like Blackwater and good ole Cheney...
     
  14. igor

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,110
    Likes Received:
    163
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago area
    OK just what the hell are we to gain by explorations on the moon? It's a dead rock, period.
     
  15. lbushwalker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    6,963
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    'Stralia Mate!
    Ninja you are a global thinker; kudos to you man!
    That is exactly how the rest of the world now see the once mighty US of A but in addition having the ability and capacity to kill more people more efficiently than any other country on this planet.
    Envious....not, fearful; absolutely!
     
  16. HardRocker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    5,719
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Did none of what I talked about in my earlier post sound useful to you? Not talking about exploring it so much as using it for a low energy staging platform to reach the outer solar system. Doesn't take much Delta-V to launch expeditions from there. It's a good place to learn survival skills for those missions too.
     
  17. ninja08hippie

    ninja08hippie Official SF Hugger
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strawberry Fields
    I disagree with you HardRocker, the monetary cost of going to the moon will not be recouped any time soon, but igor's statement is a clear indication of the problem that the human race faces: it's obsessed with money. I'd rather teach the next generation that science, innovation, and human evolution is more important than making a handful of people richer. As we push closer and closer to the collapse of our global thermal distribution system, science is what will either reverse the ice age, or live in spite of it.

    The gain is by creating a next generation interested in how far human ingenuity can go, rather than how drunk Snooki can get her unborn baby.
     
    #17 ninja08hippie, Aug 19, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  18. HardRocker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    5,719
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure I see what we disagree on. It will take money to get started, it's the only way we seem to know at this point. I know it would be generations before we recouped the expense of going to the Moon and on to the asteroids and planets.

    But with a plan to use a Lunar staging area to get out and access the materials we need to survive for the next thousand years and more, without having to keep stripping it from the Earth, the science and innovation would come flooding in out of necessity. That would be showing the next generations science and technology; demonstrating, embracing those things. It seems like the only way to overcome our built-in shortsightedness and realize our ingenuity can help us become what we aspire to be.

    If I recall correctly, Snooki is a TV personality. Sounds like something else better left behind. We have more important things to occupy us. I'm not under the illusion that any such plans exist. Just to me personally, it seems like the best pursuit.

    Yeah, yeah, we're much too busy self destructing for all that. Hardrocker is nuts, just dreaming.:coocoo