More nations are heading into space

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Feb 19, 2014 6:47 PM GMT
    More nations are heading into space

    http://www.economist.com/node/21596768?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/yeoldespacerace


    20140222_gdc375.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:36 AM GMT
    Why, yes! Elon does take Visa.
  • Nayro

    Posts: 1825

    Feb 20, 2014 6:00 AM GMT
    Some nations should go there and stay in space icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 6:08 AM GMT
    hitchikers-movie-poster.jpg
  • chris_hasting...

    Posts: 197

    Feb 20, 2014 7:24 AM GMT
    lol africa.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 7:55 AM GMT
    Cool
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 2:43 PM GMT
    as if this hasn't been happening for 60 years icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 2:48 PM GMT
    somersault saidas if this hasn't been happening for 60 years icon_rolleyes.gif
    I think the interest here lies in the sudden outburst of interest in space program development.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 3:04 PM GMT
    I'm going to fly into Uranus...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 4:45 PM GMT
    meanwhile-in-nigeria-swinging-a-cactus.j
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:07 PM GMT
    Yea, seems we've run out of shit to fuck up here on earth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2014 5:35 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidmeanwhile-in-nigeria-swinging-a-cactus.j


    Is this a pic of a failed launch attempt?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2014 4:46 AM GMT
    UndercoverMan said
    Scruffypup saidmeanwhile-in-nigeria-swinging-a-cactus.j


    Is this a pic of a failed launch attempt?


    Yes. So they did what any sensible citizens would do......they beat it repeatedly with a cactus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:05 AM GMT
    Such a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:47 AM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 8:00 AM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    Please tell me you're joking. Even if humans never populate another planet, we learn so much about our planet and the rest of the universe through our space program. Many things we would never have known had we stayed here on Earth. It's this type of ignorance that worries me about the future of our space program.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 10:05 AM GMT
    Lol meanwhile in Nigeria. I'd consider exiting orbit too.. xD
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 4:03 PM GMT
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never known of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. And besides, Hollywood movies aren't publicly funded. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 4:11 PM GMT
    SAGE, I have to disagree. I don't have a list handy, but I know that there have been an enormous number of scientific breakthroughs that have happened because of the weightless space environment. Whole industries have grown up that are depended on the kind of data that could only derive from an off-earth environment. That alone makes the money well-spent.

    The other point, and I'm not being facetious, is that at the rate we're fucking up this planet, it's worth the time and money to see exactly where the human race can emigrate to when it becomes necessary---and I imagine it will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 4:18 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ said
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never know of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....


    I find it sad that you don't consider space exploration "useful." Knowledge is power. There is literally an entire universe out there and you want to just sit here with our thumbs up our ass and not explore it? And space exploration is something that benefits us all, so why not fund it through the government? Privatizing it would only open up the door for huge corporations to destroy every neighboring planet just like they've done with our own planet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 5:12 PM GMT
    Sharka_Khan saidSAGE, I have to disagree. I don't have a list handy, but I know that there have been an enormous number of scientific breakthroughs that have happened because of the weightless space environment. Whole industries have grown up that are depended on the kind of data that could only derive from an off-earth environment. That alone makes the money well-spent.

    The other point, and I'm not being facetious, is that at the rate we're fucking up this planet, it's worth the time and money to see exactly where the human race can emigrate to when it becomes necessary---and I imagine it will.


    I hear ya.

    I just think if these industries are benefiting from the scientific breakthroughs of space flights to such a degree, it should be in their interest to collectively fund these flights themselves if public funding was radically reduced in this arena.

    To your second point, I see what you mean, but, blimey, if we can't collectively even look after our own planet properly, first and foremost, to where we afford the luxury of not needing any more public funding for hitherto necessary causes and vital social institutions that satiate the needs of earth and it's inhabitants, what hope does the new home of our species have? Once the human race of self-interest and destruction finds and inhabits it, surely we'd only replicate our current problems there, in time.

    Hopefully, if it ever gets to that point, we'd all, as a species, have evolved past that. Well, if such a feat is at all possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 5:27 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ said
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never known of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. And besides, Hollywood movies aren't publicly funded. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....


    Wow. I'm speechless at this kind of twisted and convoluted logic.

    To start with the original post was a story about more and smaller nations starting "space programs." Pretty much all of which are for the purpose of operating communications and weather satellites.

    For the other point: Total cost of the Mars Pathfinder mission, including a disposable launch vehicle, and all launch and operations costs was $280M. Cost of the movie "Waterworld" was $235M. Cost of this year's "Super Bowl" (ONE pointless TV show episode) was $70M.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 5:30 PM GMT
    Scruffypup said
    _SAGE_ said
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never know of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....


    I find it sad that you don't consider space exploration "useful." Knowledge is power. There is literally an entire universe out there and you want to just sit here with our thumbs up our ass and not explore it? And space exploration is something that benefits us all, so why not fund it through the government? Privatizing it would only open up the door for huge corporations to destroy every neighboring planet just like they've done with our own planet.


    It's not that I don't consider knowledge gleaned from space exploration fascinating or potentially useful, I just think there are more pressing issues that would benefit from the money more urgently, such as eradicating poverty, universal and top quality healthcare, medical research, fully subsidised and top quality education, greater funding for new small businesses (to even possibly replace welfare dependency at some point if possible) etc etc etc... I know these things won't be accomplished by throwing three or four or even twenty billion dollars at them, but surely they would be better off than less that amount.

    For me, space exploration feels like a luxury expenditure whilst public expenditures of dire and immediate necessity are constantly failing in many areas.

    I'm sure this has a lot to do with mismanagement of funds/corruption as well, but, with that being said, government interference with neighboring planets doesn't put me much more at ease than the idea of corporations being the ones at the helm as an alternative.

    Maybe it's the better of two evils, but, even so, the state of things on Earth so far doesn't bode well as a sign of what can eventually be replicated elsewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 5:51 PM GMT
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ said
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never known of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. And besides, Hollywood movies aren't publicly funded. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....


    Wow. I'm speechless at this kind of twisted and convoluted logic.

    To start with the original post was a story about more and smaller nations starting "space programs." Pretty much all of which are for the purpose of operating communications and weather satellites.

    For the other point: Total cost of the Mars Pathfinder mission, including a disposable launch vehicle, and all launch and operations costs was $280M. Cost of the movie "Waterworld" was $235M. Cost of this year's "Super Bowl" (ONE pointless TV show episode) was $70M.


    In which ways, specifically, is the logic I employed either 'twisted' or 'convoluted'?

    Yes, I know the original post is about more and more nations spending more and more of their tax payers money on space programs. As I looked across the denoted nations on the graph who are among them, I couldn't help but think about the significant social issues in each country that would be better served by the funding. Japan is the only one, besides Italy, which seemed to be going in the logical direction re spending patterns (especially considering their recent plagues of national environmental disasters which could use the money more urgently).

    Super bowls and movies are privately funded, they are not being footed by the tax payer. How much they cost is irrelevant to space program funding, imo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 25, 2014 7:57 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ said
    Scruffypup said
    _SAGE_ said
    mindgarden said
    _SAGE_ saidSuch a gross waste of monumental sums of money that could be better used spent where it's actually needed, on earth.


    icon_rolleyes.gif
    Virtually all of that spending is to purchase communications and weather satellites. Which are needed right here on Earth.

    And even a mission to Mars costs about as much as one moronic hollywood movie that nobody remembers.


    Where are you getting your price figure from?

    The NASA website says in black and white that a space shuttle costs $1.7 billion, and a space flight costs $450 million. So that's a minimum total of $2.15 billion for s single space mission off the bat.

    The total cost of NASAs space program over the last 30 years is nearly $200 billion.

    The 2014 cost forecast for NASA funding alone is $16.6 billion. $3.61 billion of that going to space exploration.

    I've never know of any Hollywood movie to cost even a tenth of the cheapest space mission. A mission to mars would easily supersede the $2.15 billion that is required for a local-to-earth-atmosphere space flight. By far.


    Of course projecting useful satellites is not a waste of money. I was referring more to, specifically, space exploration (for exploration sake):$3.61 billion for 2014.

    I'd prefer to see this be privately funded as opposed to it being footed on the taxpayer's dime, as is the case now.

    I'm open to being convinced that it's not a waste of excess that could be better used in more beneficial and life quality increasing ways in society.....


    I find it sad that you don't consider space exploration "useful." Knowledge is power. There is literally an entire universe out there and you want to just sit here with our thumbs up our ass and not explore it? And space exploration is something that benefits us all, so why not fund it through the government? Privatizing it would only open up the door for huge corporations to destroy every neighboring planet just like they've done with our own planet.


    It's not that I don't consider knowledge gleaned from space exploration fascinating or potentially useful, I just think there are more pressing issues that would benefit from the money more urgently, such as eradicating poverty, universal and top quality healthcare, medical research, fully subsidised and top quality education, greater funding for new small businesses (to even possibly replace welfare dependency at some point if possible) etc etc etc... I know these things won't be accomplished by throwing three or four or even twenty billion dollars at them, but surely they would be better off than less that amount.

    For me, space exploration feels like a luxury expenditure whilst public expenditures of dire and immediate necessity are constantly failing in many areas.

    I'm sure this has a lot to do with mismanagement of funds/corruption as well, but, with that being said, government interference with neighboring planets doesn't put me much more at ease than the idea of corporations being the ones at the helm as an alternative.

    Maybe it's the better of two evils, but, even so, the state of things on Earth so far doesn't bode well as a sign of what can eventually be replicated elsewhere.


    You can't fix stupid with money. Millions of people in Africa are still breeding more children they cannot feed. They know before conceiving, they will die of starvation but they continue to breed. All the money in the world will not stop that kind of ignorance. Let the civilized humans spend our money on things that will actually help us learn, progress and evolve.