I read that a space craft has entered the comet Tempel 1 at 05.52 this morning.

The total cost of the mission is, to date, $333 million. The purpose is to establish the stepping stones of the birth of our world.

Now it seems rather strange to me that a huge amount of money can be spent on such a venture when many of the people living on Earth now are so poor.

What do we actually want, to know how it all started or to address the current situation? Think what that money could have done in Africa, or for the street kids of Rio.

Well, I think most of us would agree that it would be real nice to live in a perfect World.

This starving in Africa is a real issue, but currently a fashionable one at the moment IMO.

I do not want to sound cold about this, but plenty of other things are going off everyday.

Do you honestly think that we should stop research and progress though ?

£333 million is not that much really.

Yes,

And in countries with poverty problems like India, Pakistan and China the governments build nuclear weapons and in the case of China fund a space program.

In the vast majority of these countries with starvation, the giovernment still has the money to spend on a good military to keep them selves in power. They also have the money to spend on the little perks of the job, the small things that make the difference like Mercedes cars, Lear Jets, jewellery, etc.

The Western World is not responsible for all the **** that happens on the planet. But for what we currently do, things would be a damn sight worse.

Sorry, but I do feel it IS money well spent.

Joe

I agree.

$333 million is a) a drop in the ocean b)money raised, not diverted from schools and hospitals c) a bargain price for TV rights to a totally unique and unprecedented event with unlimited potential.

I believe as a species we look in the farthest flung and most extreme places precisely because we don't know what we will find

Curtailing this simple curiosity would cost us very dearly indeed.

I agree with the last few posts, money well spent and a seperate issue to that of poverty.

Great.....We'll finally figure out how the world began then

Too bad we won't be around to figure out how we ended it....

not with a bang but a whine, and if guilt really does weigh heavy on the conscience we'll be knocked right out of orbit soon enough

Remember the idea for terraforming Mars?! Multi-billion pound adventure, take a lot of years
It could be turned into a habitable planet........until people start living there, that is

Now if we could land our governing body and a few of those faceless corporations on the comet then it really would be money well spent!

whilst i can understand everybodys view point here, i think it is easy for you to sit in your nice warm offices/houses behind your computer pondering on whether to have another cup of coffee and a bacon sandwich for breakfast and say that $333 million is 'just a drop in the ocean'.

Whilst i appreciate it is just a small amount of the total money wasted on space/weapons etc surely we have to begin somewhere? surely if all this money saved one child from starvation it is worth it ?

Originally posted by Lee1979
whilst i can understand everybodys view point here, i think it is easy for you to sit in your nice warm offices/houses behind your computer pondering on whether to have another cup of coffee and a bacon sandwich for breakfast and say that $333 million is 'just a drop in the ocean'.

Whilst i appreciate it is just a small amount of the total money wasted on space/weapons etc surely we have to begin somewhere? surely if all this money saved one child from starvation it is worth it ?

Ahem, as your location says, you really do live in 'In a galaxy far far away' :P

Originally posted by venger
Ahem, as your location says, you really do live in 'In a galaxy far far away' :P

excellent, very good well structured arguement.

i'm trying to open up the debate - your resorting to personal abuse. well done.

I'm old enough to still think £333 million an obscene amount of money, maybe to the government it is a drop in the ocean.
It just seems that one half of the world votes with its purse and the other half doesn't even own a purse

I'll leave with a quote from the west wing that describes how I feel about it:

SAM
I don’t know, Mallory, but we certainly won’t divert any municipal tax dollars, which are
always best spent on new hockey arenas.

MALLORY
No, it’s best spent feeding, housing and educating.

SAM
There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry because we
went to the moon. None of them are colder, and certainly none of them are dumber ‘cause we
went to the moon.

MALLORY
And we went to the moon. Do we really have to go to Mars?

SAM
Yes.

MALLORY
Why?

SAM
‘Cause it’s next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire.
And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of
man is hung on the timeline of exploration, and this is what’s next.

well in that case i shall give no more money or support to charities and instead give it all to space exploration - come on then - who's with me ?

Originally posted by Lee1979
whilst i can understand everybodys view point here, i think it is easy for you to sit in your nice warm offices/houses behind your computer pondering on whether to have another cup of coffee and a bacon sandwich for breakfast and say that $333 million is 'just a drop in the ocean'.

Whilst i appreciate it is just a small amount of the total money wasted on space/weapons etc surely we have to begin somewhere? surely if all this money saved one child from starvation it is worth it ?

how do you decide which branch of research is going to yield the result of more food or free energy.
If you knew in advance then you'd only invest in that, but the fact is you don't know which ones will be of most benefit, so you invest in all of them.
Whilst it's unlikely that smashing a dustbin sized bit of metal into a lump of space dirt will yield a breakthrough in cold fusion, it may well indirectly benefit a lot of other areas.
And there's the fact, that whilst i'd like some of my tax money to be spent on the reduction of poverty, i'd also like some to be spent on the furthering of mankind via scientific research.
Spending all our income of feeding starving people might solve the problem in the short term, but it's not a long term solution.

I presume those who are against the further exploration of space are willing to relinquish the everyday benefits of the associated technologies such missions have brought about?

Such as:

CAT Scanners and MRI technology, kidney dialysis machines, insulin pumps, programmable heart pacemakers, fetal heart monitors, surgical probes used to treat brain tumors in children, satellite communications, mobile phone networks; satellite TV and radio, cash machines...

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Yes,

And in countries with poverty problems like India, Pakistan and China the governments build nuclear weapons and in the case of China fund a space program.

In the vast majority of these countries with starvation, the giovernment still has the money to spend on a good military to keep them selves in power. They also have the money to spend on the little perks of the job, the small things that make the difference like Mercedes cars, Lear Jets, jewellery, etc.

The Western World is not responsible for all the **** that happens on the planet. But for what we currently do, things would be a damn sight worse.

Sorry, but I do feel it IS money well spent.

Joe

So How many Mercedes cars or Lear jets could you buy with $333 million dollars I wonder?

Originally posted by Splodge_CRB
I'm old enough to still think £333 million an obscene amount of money, maybe to the government it is a drop in the ocean.
It just seems that one half of the world votes with its purse and the other half doesn't even own a purse

Emotive arguments. Yes, it is a large amount of money, but 'obscene' is a value judgement.

I find it obscene that the countries with starving millions feel they can afford a nuclear weapons programme, a space programme, multi-million pound prestige projects.

This project already seems to have shown the scientists that the comet was not constiututed exactly as they thought. It's also showed that we can target something the lass of the Impactor on to a comet. It, in future, we need to deflect something like a comet away from an impact with Earth then this project may well be helping us do that.

So at the level of research and future practicality, this mission is worth it.

Joe

Originally posted by ferret
So How many Mercedes cars or Lear jets could you buy with $333 million dollars I wonder?

About 30 Lear Jets, probably not including running costs. Top range LJ is about 10 million dollars, I think, with running costs (basic) of maybe a million dollars a year including crew.

All for the benefit of a few rich presidents and Generals who might learn more about teh problems of their country if they walked through it rather than flew over it.

Responsibility for all the ills of the world cannot always be dropped at the door of the West.


Joe

Originally posted by Lee1979
excellent, very good well structured arguement.

i'm trying to open up the debate - your resorting to personal abuse. well done.

Hardly an insult, I used your own words in context.

If you noticed, I put a smilie in also :P_

I have not the time nor motivation to spend the day about arguing about stuff like this.

Also the clear majority of posters have agreed that it is a a positive move backed by good reasons.

Creation of the Earth & Life (http://www.elnet.lt/vartiklis/bible/texts/10.jpg) - First picture back!!

Originally posted by JoePritchard
About 30 Lear Jets, probably not including running costs. Top range LJ is about 10 million dollars, I think, with running costs (basic) of maybe a million dollars a year including crew.

All for the benefit of a few rich presidents and Generals who might learn more about teh problems of their country if they walked through it rather than flew over it.

Responsibility for all the ills of the world cannot always be dropped at the door of the West.


Joe

Then there are all the environmental impacts on the planet for no good reason. At least a probe has a specific purpose.
One day, Homo Sapiens or the descendents of, might benefit from research such as this.
One day, space technology could unite all the countries of the world in an effort to leave the Earth.
I seem to remember that the debt relief for Africa, being talked about recently is equal to the debts that Euro Tunnel are asking their bank to waive so to continue in business. Correct me if i am wrong here.

Well, BoppinBruce did start this with an emotive argument and it would be too bad if we sorted out world poverty only to have a ruddy great comet fall on us. I've never been against technology cos I use the benefits too, I feel that we should get our priorities in order tho.
Someone earlier listed on this thread all the new innovations that came about from space exploration (It started with non-stick pans!) Every single one of those has been hi-jacked by faceless conglomerates who have convinced us all we can't do without 'em. They're worth billions of pounds to industry.
What I'd like to see is some of that technology being used to sort out the worlds problems instead of adding to them by increased consumerism.
Aint a communist but a little financial shuffling wouldn't go amiss.

double post 6 hours apart... well done :thumbsup:

Just to put it into perspective, $333 million = £189 million, around 1/100 of the projected cost of implementing ID cards in this country (£19 billion). Now who do you think is wasting all the money?

You can buy thousands and thousands o' smarties for that...

Is every major undertaking going to be subjected to this kind of analysis form now on ?

What if the government decided to spend a billion pounds on cancer research, that's not helping the starving either.

shouldnt we have blasted all the worlds governments into that comet? :P

Doesn't look as though anybody has put forward a really good argument for space exploration yet. Most of the spin off benefits would probably have been developed anyway and at lower costs.

Saying we need to work out how to blast approaching meteors etc is fine but as the USA is the only country with the tech to stand any chance of achieving this, do we really think it couldn't be used for other more sinster purposes and what chance of the senate approving more expenditure anyway?

Just to see what's out there isn't much of an argument without the cheap energy source to exploit it (yes we would be doing it for greed not to extend the hand of friendship - greed has always been the motivation in the end for exploration.) And if a cheap energy source is developed we've probably got more use for it on earth - have you seen the price of petrol?

Comparing money spent on space exploration to money spent on other things and saying it's good value simply means that we should be spending less on other things eg ID cards and still isn't an argument for space exploration - rather it's against something else.

Originally posted by Cranberry
Doesn't look as though anybody has put forward a really good argument for space exploration yet. Most of the spin off benefits would probably have been developed anyway and at lower costs.

Saying we need to work out how to blast approaching meteors etc is fine but as the USA is the only country with the tech to stand any chance of achieving this, do we really think it couldn't be used for other more sinster purposes and what chance of the senate approving more expenditure anyway?

Just to see what's out there isn't much of an argument without the cheap energy source to exploit it (yes we would be doing it for greed not to extend the hand of friendship - greed has always been the motivation in the end for exploration.) And if a cheap energy source is developed we've probably got more use for it on earth - have you seen the price of petrol?

Comparing money spent on space exploration to money spent on other things and saying it's good value simply means that we should be spending less on other things eg ID cards and still isn't an argument for space exploration - rather it's against something else.

Quoting GreenBack here:

I presume those who are against the further exploration of space are willing to relinquish the everyday benefits of the associated technologies such missions have brought about?

Such as:

CAT Scanners and MRI technology, kidney dialysis machines, insulin pumps, programmable heart pacemakers, fetal heart monitors, surgical probes used to treat brain tumors in children, satellite communications, mobile phone networks; satellite TV and radio, cash machines...

Thanks Hook - I'd already seen this which seems to support the point I'm making. Far enough to bung satellites up into space to improve communication and weather forecasting but is anyone really suggesting that technological advances in medicine wouldn't have come about if there'd been no space programme?

In addition, people saw the opportunity to exploit the R & D for other uses such as ATMs but these would still have been developed without a space programme.

The speed with which IT is developing today outstrips anything that's gone before at the same time as space exploration spending has been reduced. OK you might say that the space programme created a need but the need for mass communications would have brought this about as well.

I'm not suggesting that it's simply a case of diverting funds from space exploration as a knee jerk reaction to Live8 - that's too simplistic. But if we'd spent some of that money on for example ways to combat senility do you think we'd be nearer finding a solution?

Originally posted by Cranberry
Thanks Hook - I'd already seen this which seems to support the point I'm making. Far enough to bung satellites up into space to improve communication and weather forecasting but is anyone really suggesting that technological advances in medicine wouldn't have come about if there'd been no space programme?

In addition, people saw the opportunity to exploit the R & D for other uses such as ATMs but these would still have been developed without a space programme.

The speed with which IT is developing today outstrips anything that's gone before at the same time as space exploration spending has been reduced. OK you might say that the space programme created a need but the need for mass communications would have brought this about as well.

I'm not suggesting that it's simply a case of diverting funds from space exploration as a knee jerk reaction to Live8 - that's too simplistic. But if we'd spent some of that money on for example ways to combat senility do you think we'd be nearer finding a solution?

the argument that 'we'd have developed these things anyway' is an easy one to use, but impossible to prove.

To get funding for experiments scientists have to convince the budget holders that their experiment is worthwhile (given an endless number of experiments people wish to do and a limited budget to do them), so it's not like money is just handed out willy nilly.

Fair point Cyclone - all I can say is that there have been plenty of advances in all areas of science, technology, medicine and so on that have been nothing to do with the space programme and presumably have received public or private funding. You have more confidence in the people who hand out our money than I do.

I can't imagine going up to the Treasury and saying I can improve public health by spending trillions on space exploration - not much of an argument for space exploration. Someone there would just say why bother with space just spend it on the nation's health.

Which leads back to the question I'm finding hard to answer. In it's own right what has been the point of space exploration? Magellan etc discovered parts of the world unknown to Western Europe which then got exploited but it looks unlikely that we are ever likely to benefit in the same way from space exploration.

Originally posted by Cranberry
Which leads back to the question I'm finding hard to answer. In it's own right what has been the point of space exploration?

To know whats out there, arn't you curious ?

It's like looking at the bottom of the sea, we want to know whats down there, it might not benefit us, but how dull would the world be without anything to discover ?

Originally posted by Cranberry
Fair point Cyclone - all I can say is that there have been plenty of advances in all areas of science, technology, medicine and so on that have been nothing to do with the space programme and presumably have received public or private funding. You have more confidence in the people who hand out our money than I do.

I can't imagine going up to the Treasury and saying I can improve public health by spending trillions on space exploration - not much of an argument for space exploration. Someone there would just say why bother with space just spend it on the nation's health.

Which leads back to the question I'm finding hard to answer. In it's own right what has been the point of space exploration? Magellan etc discovered parts of the world unknown to Western Europe which then got exploited but it looks unlikely that we are ever likely to benefit in the same way from space exploration.

Your thinking shortterm. In the long term there are vast amounts of resources to exploit (eg helium-3 on the moon, water in comets etc). And if we dont get involved we will be left behind, whilst Chine or India or Russia take all the resources and get the corresponding boosts to their economies.

nightrider is correct, the solar system is a vast smorgasboard of resources.

Your equivalent before we had discovered other countries by sailing the oceans would be moaning that canoe research was a waste of money and that no one had found anything useful by taking a dingy out to see a mile or two.

Nah nightrider and cyclone you haven't convinced me yet.

Vague references to water and whatever helium 3 might or might not do don't really cut the mustard.

Before you make assertions about my perceived attitudes let me say that I would have been all in favour of sailing the oceans Exploration by sea proved to be quicker than overland for bringing back items of value and it was cost effective in a way that space exploration hasn't shown any inkling of being. What helped as well was that we knew from earlier travellers that there were things worth getting.

So far for all the trillions spent we've got some moon rock and perhaps bits of dust from other planets but the costs of exploiting any wealth these planets may have outweigh the likely returns.

The only horse in the space race that's worth backing is the USA and their budget is likely to run out. China, Russia and India haven't got the trillions needed. Besides as resources dry up on this planet the need to exploit other planets increases but the ability to do so diminishes.

Originally posted by Cranberry
Nah nightrider and cyclone you haven't convinced me yet.


lol, like me, I bet they don't care if you are convinced or not lol.

It is simply called research and development, among other things.

Blinkered folk can easily prescribe this as unimportant, but hey, we are out there doing it....

But if your only reason for spending money is to find something "usefull" or to get more money back then why spend it on the starving, they arn't going to make you any money ?

Originally posted by Cranberry
Nah nightrider and cyclone you haven't convinced me yet.

Vague references to water and whatever helium 3 might or might not do don't really cut the mustard.

Before you make assertions about my perceived attitudes let me say that I would have been all in favour of sailing the oceans Exploration by sea proved to be quicker than overland for bringing back items of value and it was cost effective in a way that space exploration hasn't shown any inkling of being. What helped as well was that we knew from earlier travellers that there were things worth getting.

So far for all the trillions spent we've got some moon rock and perhaps bits of dust from other planets but the costs of exploiting any wealth these planets may have outweigh the likely returns.

The only horse in the space race that's worth backing is the USA and their budget is likely to run out. China, Russia and India haven't got the trillions needed. Besides as resources dry up on this planet the need to exploit other planets increases but the ability to do so diminishes.

there was no inkling of anything the first time someone made a raft or road a log out to sea. You have to start somewhere.
You say you'd be all in favour, but it's easy in hindsight isn't it, what if you were the village elder, you'd be going, stop messing about with those logs and go and catch us some food, complete waste of time those logs, what are you gonna do, bring us some salt water.

At the moment the costs outweigh the benefits, but as resources get more scare here, the cost/benefit analysis changes. Also as we spend more and practice the science of flying things around in space, the process gets easier and cheaper.
India/China/Russia, all expanding economies, they might not have the trillions today, but it's not a race that will be won or lost today.

Whats the point in finding out how 'it all started' anyway? Does it really matter? And even if they do think they have found out im sure there will be a load of religious people who have something to say about it, as I doubt the information from the comet is gonna tell us that God created the world.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Whats the point in finding out how 'it all started' anyway? Does it really matter? And even if they do think they have found out im sure there will be a load of religious people who have something to say about it, as I doubt the information from the comet is gonna tell us that God created the world.

what's the point in understanding gravity, or studying anything?

You can't say what the discoveries will lead us too, but you can't discount that they might lead to something.
Knowledge is its own reward.

Originally posted by Cranberry
So far for all the trillions spent we've got some moon rock and perhaps bits of dust from other planets but the costs of exploiting any wealth these planets may have outweigh the likely returns.

Does everything have to have a payoff.

What about knowledge for the sake of it? Would you also stop spending trillions on particle physics?

What areas of science do you think should be funded?

Well it depends what you're interested in Nick - I'm not that interested in what's at the bottom of the sea - if there's a nature programme on I'd rather turn over. Can't say I'm that bothered about UFOs either.

I think there is enough to sort out and discover on this planet without spending trillions satisfying what may or may not be a collective curiosity about what's out there - suspect few people are desperately interested.

I read somewhere that new species being discovered as the rainforests are chopped down barely make it to classification before they become extinct - so plenty to discover here on earth still.

Originally posted by Cranberry
I read somewhere that new species being discovered as the rainforests are chopped down barely make it to classification before they become extinct - so plenty to discover here on earth still.

But spending money on researching the rainforests is a waste of money according to your logic, how does it help us ? what guarantee do we have that any of those species were of any use to us, or even interesting ?

Phanerothyme all I'm saying is that exploration in history has tended to be for exploitation or to export the culture and beliefs of the explorers country - I'm not saying these are good things. Explorers who set off with altruistic aims tend to have their discoveries exploited eg Africa.

Knowledge for the sake of it fair enough but as the budget is limted lets sort out this planet first, plenty to know more about on Earth.

Haven't got a clue what particle physics is but you won't get me going in one of those new contraptions.

Science research er prevention of tsunamis, cure for Aids, cheap cures for malaria, research into curing mental health, cheap non polluted fuel, safer buildings and that's without really thinking about it - how would space exploration benefit these areas?

I didn't suggest spending a penny on the rainforest - my point was that there is plenty to discover on Earth and to sort out - we don't need to look outwards for things to discover.

Anyway any tangible benefits of space exploration you can come up with?

the question is a set up, you choose a bunch of areas where you think there is no benefit and then ask how it will benefit them.

but then why should it. it's benefited plenty of other areas and no doubt will continue to do so.

how about terraforming of mars, how will research into your favoured areas help with that? Or how will they help quadruple the area of land we have to live on? Or how will they help make the species resistant to an asteroid strike?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Does everything have to have a payoff.

What about knowledge for the sake of it? Would you also stop spending trillions on particle physics?



Thats a bad example because there have been many payoffs from the investment. e.g. the world wide web you are writing this on now was invented because particle physicists needed it invented.

Originally posted by Cranberry
I didn't suggest spending a penny on the rainforest - my point was that there is plenty to discover on Earth and to sort out - we don't need to look outwards for things to discover.

Anyway any tangible benefits of space exploration you can come up with?

The benefit is knowledge, not living in the dark ages, knowing whats going on, that kind of thing.

You can only realy see the ozone hole from space, you can follow the weather from space, you can study the deforestation of the Amazon from space, you can study solar flares and how they effect the Earth from space.

Signing off from this discussion - thanks to people who have replied.

I remain unconvinced that spin off benefits wouldn't have happened anyway.

Haven't got a clue what terraforming is and don't particularly want to be enlightened. Besides couldn't we just quadruple land areas by bunging communities under the oceans which is a hell of a lot closer? If we can't or don't want to manage that then is is likely we will do it on other planets?

Didn't realise one of the purposes of all this exploration was to increase the chances of surviving an asteroid strike. Might be worth spending a bit more of the money on prevention of natural disasters that occur regularly on Earth.

Off to see War of the Worlds this week - if you see the Gene Barry version watch out for Clint Eastwood in a bit part.

Originally posted by Cranberry
Haven't got a clue what terraforming is and don't particularly want to be enlightened.

I do hope you don't pass this thirst for knowledge onto your children.

Originally posted by Cranberry
Signing off from this discussion - thanks to people who have replied.

I remain unconvinced that spin off benefits wouldn't have happened anyway.

Haven't got a clue what terraforming is and don't particularly want to be enlightened. Besides couldn't we just quadruple land areas by bunging communities under the oceans which is a hell of a lot closer? If we can't or don't want to manage that then is is likely we will do it on other planets?

Didn't realise one of the purposes of all this exploration was to increase the chances of surviving an asteroid strike. Might be worth spending a bit more of the money on prevention of natural disasters that occur regularly on Earth.

Off to see War of the Worlds this week - if you see the Gene Barry version watch out for Clint Eastwood in a bit part.

well, you've said your done with the discussion, but i'll answer anyway.

Terraforming is making another planet earthlike, so that we could live there.

Who said it was "the purpose" i just suggested that some areas of research wouldn't benefit that aim, which is the argument you were using to cancel all space exploration...

It doesn't matter what level of happiness we have reached on this planet if it gets clobbered by a moon sized asteroid. That's good night to the entire ecosystem including us, and indeed good night for the planet and hello to a new asteroid belt.

If we had colonies on the moon when that happened, then at least the human race has got a chance of surviving. The more niches we cram ourselves into, the bigger the chance of continuing survival as a species.
Self contained orbital archologies would be best, no single event (apart from the sun going nova) would destroy all of them. And given that we have a fair idea of when that will happen (worked out with some of that useless knowledge gained from useless research) we could even send archologies out of the solar system in order to survive that event.