Report, edit, etc...Posted by UnholySentinel on 2004-10-29 at 22:02:25
I recently had a debate in a class on the priorities of America spending. The teacher put forth the question i know put forth to you.
My personal opinion would have to lean towards NASA. Its kind of like choosing to look forward to the problems or handling things as they hit you. Inadvertently, we have been solving some of the problems we face by investing in NASA. Medicine, Computers, Engineering, Transportation, and many more things have benifitted from or been a product of NASA. And while this is happening, we are solving future problems of overcrowding, resources, pollution, etc. A recent project has been started to put a mining colony on the moon, mining stones that have earned as much as 300 million dollars a pound. Also recently, SpaceshipOne won the X-Prize, taking off two times in 2 weeks into a internationally designated height for 'space'. They are currently converting this privately owned shuttle into a passneger-carrier. It should cost about $200,000 for a trip now, but in 5 years, should be reduced to a maximum of $50,000. We are closer ladies and gentlemen, the end is not near, but the beginning is. Hope for the future, and a new unkown to explore.
QUOTE
We have spent ENORMOUS amounts of money on the space program and NASA. Do you think that this was the most prudent thing for this money, or do you think that it should have been focused into problems closer to home, like homing, starvation, and disease?
My personal opinion would have to lean towards NASA. Its kind of like choosing to look forward to the problems or handling things as they hit you. Inadvertently, we have been solving some of the problems we face by investing in NASA. Medicine, Computers, Engineering, Transportation, and many more things have benifitted from or been a product of NASA. And while this is happening, we are solving future problems of overcrowding, resources, pollution, etc. A recent project has been started to put a mining colony on the moon, mining stones that have earned as much as 300 million dollars a pound. Also recently, SpaceshipOne won the X-Prize, taking off two times in 2 weeks into a internationally designated height for 'space'. They are currently converting this privately owned shuttle into a passneger-carrier. It should cost about $200,000 for a trip now, but in 5 years, should be reduced to a maximum of $50,000. We are closer ladies and gentlemen, the end is not near, but the beginning is. Hope for the future, and a new unkown to explore.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PearS on 2004-10-29 at 22:12:17
I think we should try to balance the two out. We can't just dismiss the problems we have now for deams of colonization of other planets or whatever. How good is another planet going to be when millions of people still die from diseases like aids. On tech tv the other day, one of the guests on the screensavers was talking about how his company is experimenting with somethings called nanobots, a little machine the size of a blood cell. He says taht in the future these will be used to cure diseases and stop the aging proces, or slow it down. They have already tested them in sheep and they cured type 1 diabetes or something like that. The future is going to dominate =-D
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Helios on 2004-10-29 at 22:36:33
I think these two go hand in hand as far as technology is concerned. Millions die from dieases big deal ? We should shift more money into diease research when there is no gurantee for a therapy or treatment anytime soon, when an exact science like aerospace and terraforming can be done with certainty. Given proper preparation of course. 300 million per pound of moon rock ? please verify this, because that makes no sense for a second. There is absolutely nothing special about the moon.
As I said before the overcrowding issue and space research go hand in hand. If we can make space stations (large ones) or settle the moon, then our overcrowding problems are solved for quite a while. In 50 years we will have settle the moon to a degree, and taking a trip their will be as routine as a plane trip to new york.
As I said before the overcrowding issue and space research go hand in hand. If we can make space stations (large ones) or settle the moon, then our overcrowding problems are solved for quite a while. In 50 years we will have settle the moon to a degree, and taking a trip their will be as routine as a plane trip to new york.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by UnholySentinel on 2004-10-29 at 23:13:18
Well about the 300mil/lb rocks, the earth's crust has a abundance of minerals, but some are so direly scarce that when the moon has huge amounts of those kinds, the make lots of money. Researching metals that earth has so few of can lead to major technological advances in the metal dept.(also armor:P)
I couldnt find the rock that i had read about previously, but i do have this
and
imagine the kind of money you could save powering a city!!
the future of the power industry
I couldnt find the rock that i had read about previously, but i do have this
QUOTE
Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.
and
QUOTE
Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.
imagine the kind of money you could save powering a city!!
QUOTE
For an investment of about $5 billion it should be possible to develop a modernized Saturn capable of delivering 100-ton payloads to the lunar surface for less than $1500 per pound.
the future of the power industry
Report, edit, etc...Posted by NeoNightmareX on 2004-10-29 at 23:47:10
QUOTE(UnholySentinel @ Oct 29 2004, 09:02 PM)
I recently had a debate in a class on the priorities of America spending. The teacher put forth the question i know put forth to you.
My personal opinion would have to lean towards NASA. Its kind of like choosing to look forward to the problems or handling things as they hit you. Inadvertently, we have been solving some of the problems we face by investing in NASA. Medicine, Computers, Engineering, Transportation, and many more things have benifitted from or been a product of NASA. And while this is happening, we are solving future problems of overcrowding, resources, pollution, etc. A recent project has been started to put a mining colony on the moon, mining stones that have earned as much as 300 million dollars a pound. Also recently, SpaceshipOne won the X-Prize, taking off two times in 2 weeks into a internationally designated height for 'space'. They are currently converting this privately owned shuttle into a passneger-carrier. It should cost about $200,000 for a trip now, but in 5 years, should be reduced to a maximum of $50,000. We are closer ladies and gentlemen, the end is not near, but the beginning is. Hope for the future, and a new unkown to explore.
[right][snapback]91814[/snapback][/right]
My personal opinion would have to lean towards NASA. Its kind of like choosing to look forward to the problems or handling things as they hit you. Inadvertently, we have been solving some of the problems we face by investing in NASA. Medicine, Computers, Engineering, Transportation, and many more things have benifitted from or been a product of NASA. And while this is happening, we are solving future problems of overcrowding, resources, pollution, etc. A recent project has been started to put a mining colony on the moon, mining stones that have earned as much as 300 million dollars a pound. Also recently, SpaceshipOne won the X-Prize, taking off two times in 2 weeks into a internationally designated height for 'space'. They are currently converting this privately owned shuttle into a passneger-carrier. It should cost about $200,000 for a trip now, but in 5 years, should be reduced to a maximum of $50,000. We are closer ladies and gentlemen, the end is not near, but the beginning is. Hope for the future, and a new unkown to explore.
[right][snapback]91814[/snapback][/right]
i agree that we should fund NASA mostly, but i think we should put more into health care to help all the ppl with health prolems
Report, edit, etc...Posted by gftgy on 2004-10-30 at 11:22:13
wow unholysentiniel, you only joined yesterday and youve already made a mark, why, dare as i say it, your logic may be smarter than mine!
(too bad i dont have the time for a serious discussion right now)
(too bad i dont have the time for a serious discussion right now)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by UnholySentinel on 2004-10-30 at 13:31:19
Thanks. But im kinda let down that overcrowding was only slightly mentioned. Thats one of the things that most people go with nasa on but it kinda works both ways. Yes colonization would definitely help solve it, but with all the medical advances that have come out of that research(medicinal, zero g research) we have prolonged life and helped overcrowing. while it might sound brutal, we are learning new ways to combat new diseases every day, saving a life that would have died, and putting one more point into overcrowding and resource consumption.