7 Earth-Size Planets Found by NASA

[Montegriffo]

Hence investing in a Space Program is an useful R&D investment. You have a case example of two countries where the other went forward with a Space program (France) and another which didn't, which had all the possibilities of doing so (the UK), because it was "expensive". They had a totally working Space Program, and then they stopped it. They simply couldn't fathom that there would be a commercial satellite market. No surprise that France's Space & Aviation industry is far bigger than in the UK.

However, despite that the UK economy is doing much better than France's and I would say we are ahead in innovation and scientific discovery too.
Besides my argument is against manned space exploration not exploration itself. I believe the manned aspect is more for the purpose of getting public interest to help acquire the massive budgets rather than any actual scientific benefit.
The difficulty experienced in landing unmanned vehicles on Mars and the high failure rate only goes to show how far away from a manned mission we really are. If landing on the moon, a mere 250k miles away with no storm raged atmosphere to contend with, took nearly a decade and up to 400,000 men and women to achieve then getting to Mars and back could take 5 times as long and cost a similar amount more money. The moon landings were also achieved at a time when the USA had prosperity they can only dream of now.
All this at a time when large parts of the planet have no clean drinking water and diseases like malaria still kill millions each year. To me the benefits of such a mission are overplayed especially when compared to solving so many more "critical" issues here on Earth.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Hence investing in a Space Program is an useful R&D investment. You have a case example of two countries where the other went forward with a Space program (France) and another which didn't, which had all the possibilities of doing so (the UK), because it was "expensive". They had a totally working Space Program, and then they stopped it. They simply couldn't fathom that there would be a commercial satellite market. No surprise that France's Space & Aviation industry is far bigger than in the UK.

However, despite that the UK economy is doing much better than France's and I would say we are ahead in innovation and scientific discovery too.
Besides my argument is against manned space exploration not exploration itself. I believe the manned aspect is more for the purpose of getting public interest to help acquire the massive budgets rather than any actual scientific benefit.
The difficulty experienced in landing unmanned vehicles on Mars and the high failure rate only goes to show how far away from a manned mission we really are. If landing on the moon, a mere 250k miles away, took nearly a decade and up to 400,000 men and women to achieve then getting to Mars and back could take 5 times as long and cost a similar amount more money. The moon landings were also achieved at a time when the USA had prosperity they can only dream of now.
All this at a time when large parts of the planet have no clean drinking water and diseases like malaria still kill millions each year. To me the benefits of such a mission are overplayed especially when compared to solving so many more "critical" issues here on Earth.

Most of those critical issues are the result of corruption and idiotic territorial squabbles. If we can expand the species to other worlds, and discover life there, those territorial squabbles would look pretty foolish in comparison. This alone could solve a number of our issues.

[Montegriffo]

Most of those critical issues are the result of corruption and idiotic territorial squabbles. If we can expand the species to other worlds, and discover life there, those territorial squabbles would look pretty foolish in comparison. This alone could solve a number of our issues.

And if that takes decades, maybe even centuries and amounts of money and resources it is hard to even comprehend then the developing world will look on with disgust and envy which will only drive a wedge further into the relationships and squabbles between nations.
Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Most of those critical issues are the result of corruption and idiotic territorial squabbles. If we can expand the species to other worlds, and discover life there, those territorial squabbles would look pretty foolish in comparison. This alone could solve a number of our issues.

And if that takes decades, maybe even centuries and amounts of money and resources it is hard to even comprehend then the developing world will look on with disgust and envy which will only drive a wedge further into the relationships and squabbles between nations.
Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

I don't think that the third-world's opinion of us could be much lower than the diplomatic message of bombing and threatening them.

[Montegriffo]

Most of those critical issues are the result of corruption and idiotic territorial squabbles. If we can expand the species to other worlds, and discover life there, those territorial squabbles would look pretty foolish in comparison. This alone could solve a number of our issues.

And if that takes decades, maybe even centuries and amounts of money and resources it is hard to even comprehend then the developing world will look on with disgust and envy which will only drive a wedge further into the relationships and squabbles between nations.
Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

I don't think that the third-world's opinion of us could be much lower than the diplomatic message of bombing and threatening them.

That's developing world to you, third world is no longer acceptable in a politically correct world.

[ssu]

I believe the manned aspect is more for the purpose of getting public interest to help acquire the massive budgets rather than any actual scientific benefit. The difficulty experienced in landing unmanned vehicles on Mars and the high failure rate only goes to show how far away from a manned mission we really are. If landing on the moon, a mere 250k miles away with no storm raged atmosphere to contend with, took nearly a decade and up to 400,000 men and women to achieve then getting to Mars and back could take 5 times as long and cost a similar amount more money. The moon landings were also achieved at a time when the USA had prosperity they can only dream of now.

Oh, I totally agree that manned missions do have those elements. Yet then you say that the USA had MORE prosperity than now, that is a bit thick by any standard. That of course implies the US was GREAT then, not as now. Which, uh, makes just my point. These kind of events do have a lot to do how people picture the times they live in.

And building Pyramids, Palaces or going to the North and South Poles are similar "unnecessary things".

[ssu]

Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

The standard argument for not having a space program is that "the money is better spent somewhere else". Just how better in truth the money is spent is one thing.

Yet as a space program is basically a huge R&D program which basically has to have a lot of Basic infrastructure and high-tech, that actually might be well spent than just to give the money for someones pensions and services that don't advance technology. Space is basically a quite demanding environment where things simply won't work if the parts of the machines are made badly.

[Montegriffo]

Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

The standard argument for not having a space program is that "the money is better spent somewhere else". Just how better in truth the money is spent is one thing.

Yet as a space program is basically a huge R&D program which basically has to have a lot of Basic infrastructure and high-tech, that actually might be well spent than just to give the money for someones pensions and services that don't advance technology. Space is basically a quite demanding environment where things simply won't work if the parts of the machines are made badly.

I agree that much more money is wasted on much more useless things but the brain drain of so many of the finest scientists is less excusable. I think the useful benefit to dollar ratio is overstated in advancements coming from manned exploration of the universe. It's too much of a vanity project in my estimation.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Territorial squabbles would be much better healed by real improvements in health and living standards in those places than some mission to a far of world with limited real benefits.

The standard argument for not having a space program is that "the money is better spent somewhere else". Just how better in truth the money is spent is one thing.

Yet as a space program is basically a huge R&D program which basically has to have a lot of Basic infrastructure and high-tech, that actually might be well spent than just to give the money for someones pensions and services that don't advance technology. Space is basically a quite demanding environment where things simply won't work if the parts of the machines are made badly.

I agree that much more money is wasted on much more useless things but the brain drain of so many of the finest scientists is less excusable. I think the useful benefit to dollar ratio is overstated in advancements coming from manned exploration of the universe. It's too much of a vanity project in my estimation.

Yeah no, you just walked into a bear trap, my friend.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

[Speaker to Animals]

You cannot realistically argue against the positive cost to benefit ratio of the space program (at least not the US space program). It's more than paid for itself already.