Displaying all 8 Forum Posts

NASA's Mission to Land a Man on Mars a Bad Idea

2008-10-22 08:34 AM

Science Geek
Dallas, TX
Posts: 5

What is everyone's thoughts? When Bush changed NASA's mission to focus on landing a human on Mars I thought it was a very dumb idea. Especially with the huge advances in AI and robotics.

NASA had just not too long ago changed its strategy to have multiple smaller projects rather than big ones to reduce risk.

And a mission to Mars? Let's focus on all the real science and discoveries we can do with probes\robots to the many planets, comets, asteroids we have still more to explore and new telescopes and such.

2008-10-23 08:36 AM

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

I tend to agree, its much too impractical to fly humans around the solar system at this juncture. I'm actually leaning toward privatising NASA. Break it up and sell it to the highest bidders. Let the free market drive space exploration. If it doesn't, then there are higher priorities for mankind right now.

2008-10-24 02:27 PM

Saul Albom
Dallas, TX
Posts: 22

Wow what a brilliant idea. Nothing has retarded science and space exploration like NASA. To keep out competition they artificially lowered the prices of satellite launches so private enterprises can't compete. If it wasn't for NASA we'd probably have people on mars now, or almost there. Those billions of dollars that NASA spends would be better off being spent feeding hungry children. They one day may grow up to be scientists.

Isn't it morally wrong to spend money on space travel when there are people with with out health insurance and starving children?

2008-10-28 05:10 AM

Science Geek
Dallas, TX
Posts: 5

Saul Albom Wrote: Wow what a brilliant idea. Nothing has retarded science and space exploration like NASA.

Since when? Are you making this comment since its inception when we were in the space race, and competition against Russia allowed the US to make one of the greatest achievements in mankind and land a man on the moon? A feat yet to be matched? And all the scientific achievements and inventions and new technologies we have because of this?

Saul Albom Wrote:
To keep out competition they artificially lowered the prices of satellite launches so private enterprises can't compete.

What about the commercial benefits of this? GPS, satellite radio, satellite TV, satellite phones and more? The US government gains overall by helping US corporations be the world leaders in these and other areas.

Saul Albom Wrote: If it wasn't for NASA we'd probably have people on mars now, or almost there.

How is that? I absolutely 100% disagree with this. How much is a mission to mars? $500 billion? $1 trillion?

1.) What corporation in the world or group of companies can afford that?
2.) What is the ROI on this? I would venture a $1 trillion cost would put the ROI if you rounded it off to negative $1 trillion. There is no commercial reason to go to Mars.
3.) Corporations are not perfect. Especially publicly traded ones. They tend to look at the next quarter or year and more shorter term than long.

Saul Albom Wrote:
Those billions of dollars that NASA spends would be better off being spent feeding hungry children. They one day may grow up to be scientists.

Isn't it morally wrong to spend money on space travel when there are people with with out health insurance and starving children?

This is not a valid argument. If you make this case you have to compare against all government programs equally and not target one. Is it not even more wrong to fight an unjust war killing ppl than helping out those in need? One war can cost more than entire history of NASA spending.

2008-10-28 05:20 AM

Science Geek
Dallas, TX
Posts: 5

Jake K Wrote: I tend to agree, its much too impractical to fly humans around the solar system at this juncture. I'm actually leaning toward privatising NASA. Break it up and sell it to the highest bidders. Let the free market drive space exploration. If it doesn't, then there are higher priorities for mankind right now.

One thing you are overlooking is national security. We have to have a space program to ensure our military is successful. Whether it is the air force or NASA. Some things, with the space shuttle, NASA is better able to do.

Also look at all our competitor countries. European Union, China, Russia, India and others have space programs now. And they are all run by the government.

Who is going to regulate space? If you privatize everything how are you going to control things? How are you going to deal with insurance? Any company that has a private venture is going to have to have the government cover the insurance behind it because no major company will I don't think. At least not at a cheap price. Which then makes it too expensive.

We already have a controlled and regulatory body in place. It is called NASA. It is not 100% government run. They outsource a lot of stuff to private companies. The system works well. Space travel is risky so there have been tragedies. But we have a space station, Hubble telescope, robots roaming on Mars and more.

I think these are great accomplishments. And well worth the price relative to our annual budget. You could argue whether government should do these things or not. But I think many of the projects are well worth it. And most I don't think any private company would want to do.

It is human nature to explore.

Jason

2008-11-01 04:44 AM

Jake K
Spring, TX
Posts: 9

Well obviously you have to regulate rocket launches, but that is not a sufficient argument for continuation of the goverment run monopoly. Where there is private enterprise to fill government shoes, it should ALWAYS be privatised. That's basic economics. However, there are areas where the government should prop up, subsidize, and even begin whole new enterprise when national security demands it. I'd say that was the case with NASA until recently. Also, you are correct about humans wanting to explore. We explore to find things for material gain, to satisfy our curiosity, and to stake our flag in new territory. For there to be sufficient ROI to drive space exploration, this "space utopia" idea must be thrown out like all Earthbound ones have been. Space exploration is a race for territory and resources, just like every other past exploration. That is the reality whatever high minded idealism currently occupies this area. There is not enough need or even ability to start a true space race, or we would already see one. But the day will come when it will be deemed worthwhile to start mining the moon for something, and that is when NASA will be in the WAY OF real space exploration. PS - If countries want to coordinate efforts and share spoils, that is great.

2010-08-02 07:17 AM

caseycolin
New York, NY
Posts: 29

2010-10-19 03:31 PM

zetalimit
Lawrenceburg, TN
Posts: 2