Time to End Human (as opposed to probe) Space Exploration?

[Arcov]

Allowed us to put things on the moon, which is useful for tracking its orbit around the Earth. Gave us the ability to do slightly more in-depth analysis of lunar turf. Not a lot else.

Wrong. Mechanisms like the MRI originate from the lunar mission.

I don't think the lunar missions did much for us, aside from driving government funding towards the relevant scientific and engineering apparatus, which then yielded the advances you've apparently attributed to a human boot on the moon. I feel the same way about a prospective Mars mission.

That's not the case. Challenges posed by the mission lead to solutions that, when modified, led to practical application here on Earth.

You seem to have a very inflated value of how much a Mars mission would cost.

It would cost many probes and other things which would actually be useful for science. I'm measuring this by cost-effectiveness, not raw dollars. Again, if you doubled NASA's funding, a Mars mission would be extremely low on their list of priorities.

It would only be "low on their priorities" because people like you start complaining about how much they might be spending. A Mars mission has long been accepted to be an eventual goal of NASA, but because of cuts in funding, is impossible.

And when you make comments like "destroy the entire economy and starve people" it's hard for you to say you don't have an inflated value.

[Wisconsin9]

The fact that if it is too far away, he can get a tiny fraction of his taxes back.

Leaving aside, of course, the dozens of useful inventions NASA (to name one) has either developed or pioneered.

And the unimaginable number of extremely advanced technologies that would have to be developed for any manned interstellar mission, and even more for any colonization efforts, likely including revolutionary advances in medicine, energy production, and agriculture.

[Tubbsalot]

Wrong. Mechanisms like the MRI originate from the lunar mission.

...er, are you referring to magnetic resonance imaging? If so, no it does not.

That's not the case. Challenges posed by the mission lead to solutions that, when modified, led to practical application here on Earth.

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with me. The important part was that the science and engineering work was funded. Actually stepping on the moon was, at best, a nice little bonus.

It would only be "low on their priorities" because people like you start complaining about how much they might be spending.

No, I'd quite happily give them twice the budget to do whatever the fuck they liked with. And I can assure you, they wouldn't want to spend all that money on a glossy, pointless Mars base. Not unless they were trying to attract additional funding (since, in case you hadn't noticed, the only reason anyone wants to fund NASA any more is because they might put people on Mars).

And when you make comments like "destroy the entire economy and starve people" it's hard for you to say you don't have an inflated value.

Again, depends how much you want to prioritise it. If we had knowledge of an imminent world-ending asteroid impact, then yes, that could be a reasonable response.

[Arcov]

...er, are you referring to magnetic resonance imaging? If so, no it does not.

It was pretty crucial.:

Did NASA invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)?

No, NASA did not invent MRI technology, but it has contributed to its advances over the years, and elements of NASA technology have been incorporated into MRI techniques. In the mid-1960s, as a prelude to NASA’s Apollo Lunar Landing Program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed the technology known as digital image processing to allow computer enhancement of Moon pictures. Digital image processing has found a broad array of other applications, particularly in the field of medicine, where it is employed to create and enhance images of the organs in the human body for diagnostic purposes. Two of these advanced body imaging techniques are CT or CATScan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with me. The important part was that the science and engineering work was funded. Actually stepping on the moon was, at best, a nice little bonus.

And the origins of the technology would not have been developed without the challenges posed by the mission to the moon.

No, I'd quite happily give them twice the budget to do whatever the fuck they liked with. And I can assure you, they wouldn't want to spend all that money on a glossy, pointless Mars base. Not unless they were trying to attract additional funding (since, in case you hadn't noticed, the only reason anyone wants to fund NASA any more is because they might put people on Mars).

Then you'd be in the minority, because people see most space research as frivolous and unnecessary. Their funding has continually been scaled back. They consume .8% of the current yearly federal budget.

Again, depends how much you want to prioritise it. If we had knowledge of an imminent world-ending asteroid impact, then yes, that could be a reasonable response.

[/quote]
It wouldn't cost that much in the first place. Half the amount that's put into the military is at most the maximum amount it would take. It's not like millions starved because of the lunar mission.

[New Chalcedon]

It wouldn't cost that much in the first place. Half the amount that's put into the military is at most the maximum amount it would take. It's not like millions starved because of the lunar mission.

....Dude. Diverting 1/10 of America's current annual military budget to NASA would give them five times the money they've EVER had.

[Arcov]

It wouldn't cost that much in the first place. Half the amount that's put into the military is at most the maximum amount it would take. It's not like millions starved because of the lunar mission.

....Dude. Diverting 1/10 of America's current annual military budget to NASA would give them five times the money they've EVER had.

Indeed.

The amount NASA needs is tiny, much more money is wasted on nonsense elsewhere.

[Ainin]

IMO the first three are unnecessary

Well good thing you're not in charge then.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Wisconsin9]

Aside from rather emotional reasons of a generation raised on television where people regularly fly their starships around, is there any actual good reason to do something that doesn't have an especial benefits that can be accomplished more efficiently with machines in any case?

Postponing the extinction of the human species?

[Australian rePublic]

Your poll shows too many signs of hatred of humanity

[Mostrov]

‎

[Tubbsalot]

It was pretty crucial.:

No it wasn't. They developed digital image processing, which is only tangentially related to MRI. MRI is just a more elaborate form of NMR, which has been around since the 40s.

And the origins of the technology would not have been developed without the challenges posed by the mission to the moon.

...like what? What did they develop due to the manned moon landing which wouldn't also have been developed in the course of any other program involving the investigation of celestial bodies?

Then you'd be in the minority, because people see most space research as frivolous and unnecessary. Their funding has continually been scaled back. They consume .8% of the current yearly federal budget.

Yes.

It wouldn't cost that much in the first place. Half the amount that's put into the military is at most the maximum amount it would take. It's not like millions starved because of the lunar mission.

Evacuating the Earth would be a couple of steps above delivering three people to the moon.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Why do people hate human continuity so much?

[Wisconsin9]

Postponing the extinction of the human species?

Why is this good? We will inevitably go extinct you know, you speak as though there exist some justifiable reason for existence. Just because our primordial ancestors had natural selection as the prime arbitrator of whether we continue, it doesn't mean that we should follow that practice - otherwise we can regard rape as a perfectly valid stratagem. Presumably you yourself, having not decided to maximise your chances of genetic propagation aren't following this principle, so what exactly are you following?

You're eventually going to die. Does that little fact make you apathetic enough to run blindfolded across a highway?

Why do people hate human continuity so much?

MUH TAX BREAK

Actually, if we're that disgustingly short-sighted then we probably deserve to die out.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Wisconsin9]

You're eventually going to die. Does that little fact make you apathetic enough to run blindfolded across a highway?

It certainly doesn't give me a reason not too. I mean I merely have other priorities aside from killing myself at the time being. If I'm going to die eventually, it doesn't matter whether it happens sooner or later.

If you find everything ultimately meaningless then why even have priorities?

[Utceforp]

What do you mean by "ruining worlds"? The odds of finding another planet with natural life already on it are ridiculously slim. What is there to ruin?

[Mostrov]

‎

[Wisconsin9]

What do you mean by "ruining worlds"? The odds of finding another planet with natural life already on it are ridiculously slim. What is there to ruin?

And it would honestly probably be easier to colonize a dead world. No attacks by native predators, no competition for plants and animals you want to introduce for terraforming, no "food" that'll actually cause a horrifyingly painful death... find a planet with Earth-like gravity and climate and set up shop, bam.

If you find everything ultimately meaningless then why even have priorities?

Because within the context of now, I do need to keep on breathing.
After all from my perspective, there isn't anything to lose by continuing to exist; I just don't see the fuss with regards to people who aren't me (and descendants).

That! That is exactly the problem! This is why we can't have nice things! "Me, me, me! Fuck everyone else, I gotta get mine!" You are exactly what's wrong with this species! Economic fuckery, environmental problems, war, tyranny, it all comes right on back to people like you! You're screwing over everything and everyone in the long run, including yourselves, for a little bit of short term gain!

[Utceforp]

What do you mean by "ruining worlds"? The odds of finding another planet with natural life already on it are ridiculously slim. What is there to ruin?

And it would honestly probably be easier to colonize a dead world. No attacks by native predators, no competition for plants and animals you want to introduce for terraforming, no "food" that'll actually cause a horrifyingly painful death... find a planet with Earth-like gravity and climate and set up shop, bam.

Also, there's no guarantee that life on a "live" world is easy for humans. A world with life already on it might not be earth-like at all, with life adapted suitably for the different environment. That's not even getting into the atmosphere, imagine how hard it would be to colonize a world populated by methane breathers. And it's not like you're going to run out of non-life filled worlds. Space has a lot of space.

Because within the context of now, I do need to keep on breathing.
After all from my perspective, there isn't anything to lose by continuing to exist; I just don't see the fuss with regards to people who aren't me (and descendants).

That! That is exactly the problem! This is why we can't have nice things! "Me, me, me! Fuck everyone else, I gotta get mine!" You are exactly what's wrong with this species! Economic fuckery, environmental problems, war, tyranny, it all comes right on back to people like you! You're screwing over everything and everyone in the long run, including yourselves, for a little bit of short term gain!

Thank you so much.

Every philosophy posits that a human life has some sort of value, even if that value is zero, for the more cynical ones. To remain logically consistent, you have to assign every human roughly the same value. If you're worth keeping alive, everyone is worth keeping alive. If everyone else is worth nothing, you're worth nothing too. Plus, rational selflessness tends to result in everyone prospering, while selfishness tends to result in everyone fucking each other up and nobody getting what they want except a few people.

[Wisconsin9]

And it would honestly probably be easier to colonize a dead world. No attacks by native predators, no competition for plants and animals you want to introduce for terraforming, no "food" that'll actually cause a horrifyingly painful death... find a planet with Earth-like gravity and climate and set up shop, bam.

Also, there's no guarantee that life on a "live" world is easy for humans. A world with life already on it might not be earth-like at all, with life adapted suitably for the different environment. That's not even getting into the atmosphere, imagine how hard it would be to colonize a world populated by methane breathers. And it's not like you're going to run out of non-life filled worlds. Space has a lot of space.

Worlds amenable to human life probably less so, but honestly all you really need is gravity that won't compact your skull down into your stomach. The rest you can bring with you.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Wisconsin9]

That! That is exactly the problem! This is why we can't have nice things! "Me, me, me! Fuck everyone else, I gotta get mine!" You are exactly what's wrong with this species! Economic fuckery, environmental problems, war, tyranny, it all comes right on back to people like you! You're screwing over everything and everyone in the long run, including yourselves, for a little bit of short term gain!

And why are these my priorities? Understanding cooperation and long-term planning, because it satisfies people whom you are cooperating with who have to endure such circumstances in the future does not make that the case. Mere game theory. The question I am asking is nothing to do with that, its rather why continue? Why perpetuate ourselves if it will not have any effect on ourselves.

Because why the fuck not.

That's not a question, by the way. That's my actual answer.

[The Two Jerseys]

That! That is exactly the problem! This is why we can't have nice things! "Me, me, me! Fuck everyone else, I gotta get mine!" You are exactly what's wrong with this species! Economic fuckery, environmental problems, war, tyranny, it all comes right on back to people like you! You're screwing over everything and everyone in the long run, including yourselves, for a little bit of short term gain!

And why are these my priorities? Understanding cooperation and long-term planning, because it satisfies people whom you are cooperating with who have to endure such circumstances in the future does not make that the case. Mere game theory. The question I am asking is nothing to do with that, its rather why continue? Why perpetuate ourselves if it will not have any effect on ourselves.

So we all might as well go outside and dance around while spraying aerosol cans into the air and shouting "Global warming isn't my problem, I'll be dead first!", right?

[Mostrov]

‎