"Going to Mars is a waste of money"...

shizz

...says the man who had a lot of money spent on him to jump out of a balloon.

"A lot of guys they are talking about landing on Mars," he said. "Because [they say] it is so important to land on Mars because we would learn a lot more about our planet here, our Earth, by going to Mars which actually makes no sense to me because we know a lot about Earth and we still treat our planet, which is very fragile, in a really bad way.
"So I think we should perhaps spend all the money [which is] going to Mars to learn about Earth. I mean, you cannot send people there because it is just too far away. That little knowledge we get from Mars I don't think it does make sense."

Really don't agree with this. Admittedly we do need to treat our planet better but we in no way "know a lot about Earth".

He goes on to say it's a waste of tax payers money. I really hate this argument. The money spent into space exploration nearly always puts the same amount of money back into the economy or more again due to advanced technology and commercial information. I's nearly go as far as to say the only ones that don't are failed missions.

Any opinions?

Nwm2

Opinion? In terms of waste of money:

Mars > Space Station > Shuttle.

And the shuttle was a huge waste.

Chuck Stone

Imo inter-planetary manned missions would be too costly. I think robotic missions offer value for money and huge scope for exploration.

I'd love to see exploratory probes being sent to the interesting moons of the gas giants.

shizz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Imo inter-planetary manned missions would be too costly. I think robotic missions offer value for money and huge scope for exploration.

I'd love to see exploratory probes being sent to the interesting moons of the gas giants.

Manned missions can be made possible, obviously more expensive but if done correctly can increase the amount done by robotic scientific missions ten fold.

Anyway, he's referring to robotic mission's as well here.

ThatDrGuy

Always have to consider the marginal cost. The cost of one 100,000,000,000 dollar space station is also the cost of not funding about a million phds. But then again is also the cost of not making 100 stealth bombers. Really depends
on what you actually devote the "wasted" resources towards. There is very little potential for any sort of economic return on space missions - sending humans to mars is more about the fulfillment of a grandiose civilisational narrative than any pragmatic scientific dividend. Given the escalating troubles we are facing on spaceship Earth it smacks of fiddling while Rome burns.

Nwm2

shizz wrote: »

Manned missions can be made possible, obviously more expensive but if done correctly can increase the amount done by robotic scientific missions ten fold.

Anyway, he's referring to robotic mission's as well here.

What does that even mean?

shizz

Nwm2 wrote: »

What does that even mean?

Sorry I should have clarified. The amount of science done.

There's only so much robots can do on Mars considering we are still controlling them. By basically cutting out the middle man and putting humans there procedures can get completed quicker.

Not to mention the advantages of having a human there. We have intuition and dexterity greater than the rovers we can send there. Qualified geologists can make decisions upon samples much quicker than the time it takes for scientist back here to wade through the data after many hours have passed since the procedure had taken place, for example.

Mickeroo

I don't think it's a waste of money at all. In the long run I would think it's not only money well spent but actually necessary for the benefit of our species.

shizz

I think this link may be fitting for some people here to look at

ThatDrGuy

These are the same arguments used by the military to try and justify their own obscene amounts of funding ( nuclear power, computers , internet etc)
The vast majority of scientific developments do not occur via happenstance spinoffs - they occur through targeted investment and development in the fields where the problems exist. These same areas are starved of research investment because they lack the cachet of space travel or the fear mongering of the global arms business. By this logic a program designed to catapult penguins would be equally meritorious as it also allows the potential of technological development - tracking systems, biological monitoring devices, insulation , non invasive anatomical profiling, shielding etc

Nwm2

shizz wrote: »

I think this link may be fitting for some people here to look at

So the winner of the spin off prize was in the vital area of packaging crisps without breaking them.

Nice return from the €4 billion annual budget.

Nwm2

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

These are the same arguments used by the military to try and justify their own obscene amounts of funding ( nuclear power, computers , internet etc)

And these are the precise threads you see on military forums, for example defending the enormous cost overruns on the F35 project. No cost benefit analysis, and no concept of opportunity cost. Basically - I like planes so lets spend lots of other people's money on cool planes. Don't bother me with the details.

Wasn't the 2004 Mars plan to be part financed by stripping NASA's science budget?

mickmackey1

If the tens of billions ̶w̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ spent on the space station had instead been used for a fleet of giant telescopes we would now know if there is life on nearby planets...

Rubecula

mickmackey1 wrote: »

If the tens of billions ̶w̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ spent on the space station had instead been used for a fleet of giant telescopes we would now know if there is life on nearby planets...

I don't agree with this to be honest. How would a fleet of telescopes tell us anything of importance about life on nearby planets?

shizz

mickmackey1 wrote: »

If the tens of billions ̶w̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ spent on the space station had instead been used for a fleet of giant telescopes we would now know if there is life on nearby planets...

Wasted? The experiments that are on going on board the space station allow for us to plan towards the future and enhance the safety of our astronauts.

All of this is necessary ground work for the future of our species. It's all well and good saying that we need to turn our resources around to make sure we don't ruin our planet, but people need to wake up to the fact that there are forces outside of our planet which we cannot control. We can only prepare for them. All this work being put into human space exploration now will allow for us to build up our technology to a level when we can safely leave this planet and colonise elsewhere. Leaving this planet will have to be done sometime in our species future and when that time comes we won't be able to do it without these baby steps we are taking now.



Not sure what year this budget is from but it portrays the percentages spent nicely.

I really hate the comparison of space exploration spending to the military spending. The money spent within the world's military's out weighs that spent on space exploration by a very large factor. Why not concentrate your disapproval towards the military instead of a cause which will ultimately benefit our species right now and in the long run.

Mickeroo

The military comparison doesn't work for me, the amount of money spent on space exploration (and indeed, science projects in general) is miniscule when compared to the military. Also you're not comparing like with like imho, the military is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with our species and our society today whereas space exploration & scientific research represents the best we have to offer and will also maintain our existence in the long run, it's thinking about the bigger picture. That may sound hyperbolic/grandiose/whatever but it's true imo.

Of course I acknowledge we can't really do without military in our society at the moment, but I think the playing field should be leveled in financial terms at least.

Perhaps ironically after the quote in the OP, but the stratos jump actually gave me a bit of hope regards reaching mars as I thought it might perhaps somehow herald the advent of serious private investment in space exploration.

al28283

shizz wrote: »

...says the man who had a lot of money spent on him to jump out of a balloon.

How much?

mickmackey1

Rubecula wrote: »

I don't agree with this to be honest. How would a fleet of telescopes tell us anything of importance about life on nearby planets?

A fleet of telescopes employing interferometry would be able to detect oxygen in the atmospheres of nearby planets, a sure giveaway of life. I personally find this more fascinating than anything happening on the SS; I'm not dissing the project completely, its just the scale of the expense bugs me.

Mickeroo wrote: »

The military is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with our species and our society today whereas space exploration & scientific research represents the best we have to offer

It always surprises me that the intelligent folks in NASA and engineering generally seem willing to co-operate with the dodos in the military, if these nutters were left to their own devices they wouldn't be capable of launching a paper plane.

Mickeroo

mickmackey1 wrote: »

A fleet of telescopes employing interferometry would be able to detect oxygen in the atmospheres of nearby planets, a sure giveaway of life. I personally find this more fascinating than anything happening on the SS; I'm not dissing the project completely, its just the scale of the expense bugs me.

You might be interested in the Kepler Mission if you haven't already heard of it.

It's already found over 2000 goldilocks zone orbiting planets afaik.

shizz

al28283 wrote: »

How much?

Judging from this link;

Red Bull hasn’t given details on the cost of this mission, but some estimate it could have been in the area of $30 million.

One can assume it wasn't cheap.

syklops

shizz wrote: »

The money spent within the world's military's out weighs that spent on space exploration by a very large factor. Why not concentrate your disapproval towards the military instead of a cause which will ultimately benefit our species right now and in the long run.

Throw away comment: The USA spends more money on defence spending than the 20 next largest countries, 19 of which are allies. The problem is not how much is spent on the military, its how little is spent on space exploration.

I dont think the ISS or the shuttle program were wastes of money. Very little money spent with the goal of discovery is wasted. I just think its a pity they didnt keep up the momentum after the Apollo missions and keep aiming for Mars.

mickmackey1

Mickeroo wrote: »

You might be interested in the Kepler Mission if you haven't already heard of it.

It's already found over 2000 goldilocks zone orbiting planets afaik.

We will surely find out that earthlike planets are a dime-a-dozen. Which makes it more surprising that we see no signs of higher intelligence out there...

minktrapper

Look on it as research and development on the human race.

syklops

mickmackey1 wrote: »

We will surely find out that earthlike planets are a dime-a-dozen. Which makes it more surprising that we see no signs of higher intelligence out there...

The rate at which we are blasting Hannah Montana into space, maybe they are hiding from us?

Cavehill Red

That Baumgartner lad seemed like an arrogant twat to me from early on. His skill in life was jumping from very high up? Big swinging mickey. And he managed, with the benefit of contemporary tech largely created by the likes of NASA, to just about beat records set in the 60s? I'd say 'wow' except I'm yawning so much.
Plus, I bristled at the continuous and incorrect claims about him leaping 'from the edge of space'. That's a lot like describing Portlaoise as 'the edge of Carlow town'.
In short, I think the very definition of short-term, short-sighted insular thinking is the idea that we do not need to make manned missions (and colonisation) of Mars our species' number one priority.

golden lane

mars the planet, or mars the bar.........waste of money in both cases, but people or societies are free to spend their money as they choose.....

Rubecula

I thought twice about posting this reply. If it comes across as inflammatory I am sorry, it is not meant to be. It is merely my own opinion reduced to basics.

If you don't want to explore space then what you want is to sit in your chair and wait for death!

(A little dramatic sounding but as I say it is reduced to basics AND it is merely my own opinion)

Nerro

Rubecula wrote: »

If you don't want to explore space then what you want is to sit in your chair and wait for death!

Probably the best post in this thread.We as a humanity are going to start looking into space only when something bad is going to happen.For some reason our logic is spend where it matters now and see what happens tommorow.
Imagine if we would discover that an asteroid is going to hit us in 10 years time.i can bet then all the main goverments are going to think : oh crap...they were right.We shoul of invested more rather than send troops to a country we cant even pronounce.
I wounder if that would happen ,they would still try to nuke the fella out of the sky or try to figure out something smarter?

Mickeroo

Nerro wrote: »

Probably the best post in this thread.We as a humanity are going to start looking into space only when something bad is going to happen.For some reason our logic is spend where it matters now and see what happens tommorow.
Imagine if we would discover that an asteroid is going to hit us in 10 years time.i can bet then all the main goverments are going to think : oh crap...they were right.We shoul of invested more rather than send troops to a country we cant even pronounce.
I wounder if that would happen ,they would still try to nuke the fella out of the sky or try to figure out something smarter?

Most of us live in a bubble and can't stand the thought of acknowledging that until it bursts. Look at some of the attitudes towards climate change in the US, I'd be surprised if Sandy is even enough to wake some of those people up.

H3llR4iser

Nerro wrote: »

...We as a humanity are going to start looking into space only when something bad is going to happen...

..or when there will be something to be gained from, economically.

If, hypothetically speaking, it was discovered that Mars was brimming with oil, I bet there would be an instant 10x acceleration in the rate of progress in interplanetary travel technology, as private corporations would want to find ways to overcome the obstacles between them and some potential big source of additional income.

Nwm2

Rubecula wrote: »

I thought twice about posting this reply. If it comes across as inflammatory I am sorry, it is not meant to be. It is merely my own opinion reduced to basics.

If you don't want to explore space then what you want is to sit in your chair and wait for death!

(A little dramatic sounding but as I say it is reduced to basics AND it is merely my own opinion)

Someone said this was the best post on the thread.

I'm going to be purposely provocative and say it is the dumbest post on the thread.

No-one reading this is going to have a lifespan at all affected by whether we explore space on manned missions or not, in the short term (ie decades).

So, you're going to have to be a bit more specific about what you are referring to...