Exactly. They are definitely complimentary. There is a lot to be learned in space, and a lot of concepts in a lot of different fields of science are tested in space.

It's a shame that we aren't on the moon. Yes, the moon is a different world, and is a challenge to get to...but in the scheme of things, it's right next door. It's practically our back yard - it's the easiest place to get to. And there's a lot we don't know about the moon. And a lot we could accomplish on the moon.

Humans by their very nature are explorers. This nation was built on the foundation of explorers. We must continue to explore onward and upward.

NYIntensity, your argument is that we have done a lot since we last were on the moon, without going to the moon. But what I wonder is what we would have done if we kept a presence on the moon, or we made trips to Mars? I'd wager a whole lot more.

We have done a lot in space since then. And we've learned a lot over the years. Many good things have come from our experiences with the shuttle and station. But there is the potential for a whole lot more.

And it's sad, this day in age, that we are not doing such things, not because we lack the technical ability to do so or develop systems to do so, but because of politics and money. I'm not asking for a lot of money, but something a little more than 0.47% of the national budget would be nice. Yeah, that's less that half a percent. We've done so much with so little, it would be amazing to see what we could do with more.

I was born 19 years after Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt left the moon. I'm honestly depressed that we haven't been back, that I've been living for almost two decades since then and haven't seen any real progress. The ISS is amazing, but it just seems like it should be the stepping stone to something bigger. I'm excited for the future, knowing that we have the potential to accomplish so much, but also am unhappy that the biggest hurdles may very well be the political, economical, and management ones. It's truly a shame.

So who cares? I care. A lot of people care. It's something that has a huge benefit. We can become a spacefaring society, a world of explorers.

Do I care about being first? Somewhat. I guess it's a question of whether or not I have national pride. Do I want to be supportive of my country, one of the most prosperous and successful in the history of the world? Because this country should be leaders in science and technology. We are one of the best nations in the world, and we need to exercise our full potential. Lack of attention to those fields will only set us up to fail.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said it very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o



I'm not going to argue that fact, as it's way beyond the thinkable future, but with that argument, why should we be doing anything? Why should we be doing anything to better our lives, to learn more, if we are going to lose it all eventually?

And on a sidenote, satellite installations and repair is something not well suited for humans. Just not worth it - the cost of launching a new satellite is far less than upgrading or repairing an existing one. As awesome as the Hubble repair missions were, they didn't make a whole lot of sense.

You're slightly missing the point. We should be funding research and such that will actually improve life on earth while humans actually still exist. I wouldn't put extra money into manned missions that won't come to fruition before we're all gone. Wasting time, money, and effort on anything doesn't exactly improve humankind.

Side note - Stephen Hawking happens to be down on the list of preeminent theoretical physicists, but he's obviously the most popular.

1980 - pretty well put, and it sums up my scatterbrained thoughts.

I kicked myself in the pants this morning for not thinking about this yesterday. Our government tasked NASA scientists with fixing a fucking car....but not this oil spill? Really?

Wasn't a huge problem to overcome with space flight the formation of ice on equipment as reached the lower atmosphere? Sounds a lot like a problem the guys at BP are having. I think NASA should get a lot more of the budget, if they were to be retasked. Make them the nation's "Manhattan Project" of sorts; anything we come up with, throw it at 'em. They're THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.... or at least I'd like to think so

_________________

I don't think I'm missing the point. Space exploration has tangible benefits that will improve life for humans while we still exist, which should be billions of years barring we don't destroy ourselves.

NASA, however, should not be retasked. They should have never been investigating Toyota's faults anyway, unless there was a specific tie to something that NASA had experience with that would be beneficial. (Don't we have the NTSB for a reason?) NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Aeronautics and space. Not oil spills, car issues, etc.

NASA certainly isn't composed of all of the smartest people in the world. Maybe the smartest people when it comes to aeronautics and space, but not outside of their specialization.

Proposing an agency that would have to be so familiar with many different fields would be just destined to fail. Taking away all of the specialization. Knowledge must be shared between agencies and they must be able to work cooperatively, but one broad agency would not work at all.

You were missing my point when you quoted me and said, "...but with that argument, why should we be doing anything? Why should we be doing anything to better our lives, to learn more, if we are going to lose it all eventually?"

Of course we should research or explore if it will improve our lives, regardless of our eventual demise, as long as we will still be in existance to enjoy the benefits. Funding the research and planning of manned missions out to Mars or beyond, or for eventual settlement on another planet is a waste of time, because it's highly unlikely (certain IMO) that humans won't live long enough for that to happen.

If you're stance is purely a monetary one, NASA is only a fraction of a percent of the Federal budget.



We spend more on just about everything else.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

It's even less than that now - that graph is showing 0.6%, which is a few years ago...now it's less than a half a percent.



I think we will live plenty long to settle on Mars. If we actually put forth a good effort, we could establish a settlement on Mars within a hundred years or so. I'd like to think we're going to be around then.

And the goal of missions to Mars or another planet does not need to be permanent settlement, although it is nice to think that would be the case.

XC, I'm not overly concerned that the US is wasting money with NASA. I just hope that there isn't too much money being wasted by NASA on research for projects that won't ever come to fruition.

Wasting money is kind of what this country does best though isn't it?

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I think you can look at every federal agency and worry the same thing. NASA actually is probably less of a worry than most agencies - they accomplish a lot with the little money they have.

Now, Ares I was a huge waste - let's keep throwing more money into a rocket that will keep underperforming and getting delayed. That's not going to help get anywhere.

But the objective is still a good one, although the execution has not been.

yes, because of Nasa's effort studying Megatron, we have been able to reverse engineer cell phones.

_________________
Check out my website: http://www.artistzero.com

"That wasn't very nice...I do believe you killed my hat."

Driver of the FIRE LINDY RUFF Bandwagon since 2008.