The great nasa debate

[goodcents]

I think it's a joke and waste of money

[Atomini]

"This is a group of social criminals, these people in the space program. NASsholes, I call them. In case you haven't heard, the latest disaster for the rest of the universe is that the United States is gonna go to Mars. Okay? Oh, yeah. We're gonna go to Mars. And then of course we're gonna colonize deep space. With our microwave hot dogs and plastic vomit, fake dogshit and cinnamon dental floss, lemon-scented toilet paper and sneakers with lights in the heels. And all these other impressive things we've done down here. But let me ask you this: what are we gonna tell the intergalactic council of ministers the first time one of our teenage mothers throws their newborn baby into a dumpster? How are we gonna explain that to the space people? How are we gonna let them know that our ambassador was only late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold and he had to spend half an hour punching his wife around the kitchen? And what are they gonna think when they find out, its just a local custom, that over 80 million women in the Third world have had their clitorises forcibly removed in order to reduce their sexual pleasure so they won't cheat on their husbands? Can't you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?"

-- George Carlin

[goodcents]

[DSM4Life]

Release of New leaked nasa photo

[goodcents]

Original by Karn

Bring it on

I just want to give a few examples of research that would not be done without state funding.

Hubble telescope. I could care less
I dont think any scientific experiment has done as much to advance human knoweledge as the hubble. This project has cost something betwen 4,5-6 billion $. Will there ever be any "profit" from this? Who knows, but it has shed light on the shortcommings of the current scientific theories, new theories might bring new technology but that is something we will know in perhaps 30-40 years. Its impossible to know in the same way that it was impossible to know in the begining of the 20th century that the theoreis developed by einstein, heisenberg, fermi, schrödinger ect would lead to nuclear power and computers.

CERN.
Biggest physics lab in the world. Costs one billion a year to run, countless billions to build and uppgrade. Just like hubble it has produced some extremely important scientific discoveries and plenty of nobel prizes. Like with hubble there is no telling if there ever will be any tech made out of the science discovered. But CERN was the birthplace for the world wide web and I guess that can be called quite important I thought some guy made it up and they would have made it anyways

ITER and other fusion reactors. sounds like pork
The cost of ITER is close to 15 billion $. If succesfull it might give rise to a economic and unlimited source of energy in 40 years or so. No company would ever put 15 billion into a project that might give return on investment in 40 years. ITER is just a fraction of the investments made in fusion by goverments all over the world for a very long time.

Todays nuclear reactors.someone else would have done it too
Almost all of the comercial reactors of today are based on a design made by westinghouse for the US nuclear fleet. The entire field of reactor technology was born and developed by the american national labs(and offcourse the russians aswell). Today nuclear power is offcourse cheap, plentifull and competitive and has payed back every cent ever put into it. But without those huge investments in the begining by goverments there wouldnt be any comercial nuclear power.

Fourth generation nuclear power.
Research is mainly done by universities and national labs. The investments from private companies are exceedingly small. The technology is predicted to be competitive around 2020 and beyond and it has huge, almost unlimited potential. But even though we are only talking about 10-15 years into the future the industry doesnt not want to invest.

A example of future development that relies on state funding. There is absolutely no profit to be made of going to the moon in the short term(30 years or so). But in the long term it could be the doorway into space mining and other enterprises that might bring alot of money. Would any company put tens of billions into going to the moon knowing they might possibly make a profit in 50 years?

The big difference betwen research done by private companies and research made by national labs and universities is that the national labs/unis have the goal of advancing science and developing long term technology. The research done by companies is extremely applied and short term. If it cant be applied within a few years its not a safe enough investment.

All and all it sounds like waste or private companies could have done it cheaper and better

[goodcents]

I'm arguing with myself

[Kärnfysikern]

[Pooks]

BUMP

This is not a great thread yet.. but one day it will be....

[qualityclrk1]

i like it....never know what new element we may uncover....cure for cancer? make death impossible? who knows....possibilities are as endless as space itself....some of the missions in which they wanna send men we can do without....they cost more, and robots can be every bit as productive as a man can

[convalescence69]

I am all for space travel, research, and exploration.... but Nasa has been doing a piss poor job of it for the last couple decades.

[goodcents]

MeanieI built it and no one came

[Kärnfysikern]

MeanieI built it and no one came

Cant argue against those points

[goodcents]

Cant argue against those points

I know, not my best work