money spent on space exploration,?

Question

some people believe that the money spent on space exploration is a complete waste. other think that this spending is essential because it is a new and exciting area that can offer many benefits.
what are your views on this subject?

Answer 1

What a lot of people never consider is the money indirectly generated by the space program.

There are a lot of products that were developed for NASA that then found their way into public use and were sold and and taxed.

NASA needed smaller and smaller componants so the contracted out to a lot of companies to develop smaller calculators, computers, communication equiptment and such. These companies then took the technologies they developed and began making products for public comsumption and solde them, which generated for the government, revenue through taxes.

Now, I am not saying that desktop computers, calcualtors and other products would not have been developed without the push from NASA to make them, but it help and the tax money generated by these products help to offset the initial cost.

There is no way to calculate how much the technology originally developed for or by NASA has impacted the countrys ecomony, however, the impact has to be great and it is something to consider when figuring the cost of NASA. . .

Answer 2

Without saying gay stuff like space exploration quenches our undeniable thirst for knowledge, there are practical reasons why space exp. is good. As mentioned before, a lot of our current technology is completely and directly derived from technology created and used for space exploration. This is a definate economy boost. Also, NASA's budget is so freakin small when compared to anything else on the nation's food table. People can say it wastes money and honestly believe that but even if it did it wastes so little money.

Answer 3

I'm really torn on it - because I think it's one the coolest things possible, and if it were my money and I didn't have any responsibilities of conscience or anything, that's where I'd spend it. BUT, I think we've got way more pressing problems (like a whole bunch of poor people and bad education!) that need the money more. And space travel is SO expensive. I feel like it's hard to deny millions of people healthcare or something in order to send another mission to Mars.

So, even though it's really, really cool - and I think it's so exciting whenever something new sends back its pictures - I know that the money ought to go somewhere else. Even if I have a hard time convincing myself of it.

Answer 4

Space exploration is good. I think there will always be "other" things we can spend our money on. Prioritizing pure exploration , for the sake of exploration, I believe is what separates us from the animals. It's a higher intellectual goal, not just a biologic one. Like spending money on hunger for example would be a biologic goal. It's hard to explain exactly why, except space exploration and science is ultimately a search for the meaning of our existence.

Answer 5

i don't think it's a waste ,
the human mind is inquisitive so he wants to explore the universe i don't see anything wrong in that

this is a very tricky argument that sways in both directions , answering it this way will not help ; because when u call such a thing a waste u would definitely want to use the money else where , even investing in that field could result in failures so this is a topic for a debate. no single ANSWER exists

Answer 6

In my opinion the main benefit to space exploration is because it's cool

Answer 7

All you have to do is look at all of the technology in use today in consumer goods that was originally developed during the 'Moon Race' in the 60's, and you know what the answer to that question is ☺

Doug

Answer 8

Many readers of this list are probably already familiar with Edgar Fouche's description of the USA's Top Secret TR-3B triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace craft. If not, read about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent...

The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet ...My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.

The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs... Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs.

The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet - then who knows how fast it can go!..."

I was skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claims when I first read them, as I'm sure that many of you are, but I was interested enough to do further research on what happens when you spin a plasma at high speeds in a ring (toroidal) configuration. I came across a physics article (sorry, I can't seem to locate the source right now) that described this exact configuration. The article said that, surprisingly, the charged particles of the plasma don't just spin uniformly around the ring, but they tend to take up a synchronized, tightly pitched, helical (screw thread) motion as they move around the ring. This can be understood in a general way as follows: the charged particles moving around the ring act as a current that in turn sets up a magnetic field around the ring. It is a well-known fact that electrons (or ions) tend to move in a helical fashion around magnetic field lines. Although it is a highly complex interaction, it only requires a small leap of faith to believe that the end result of these interactions between the moving charged particles (current) and associated magnetic fields results in the helical motion described above. In other words, the charged particles end up moving in very much the same pattern as the current on a wire tightly wound around a toroidal core.

I thought that this was an interesting fact, but didn't see how it could possibly relate to antigravity, until I ran across the following article: "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Robert Forward, written in 1962 (available at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf). Dr. Forward's article describes several little known aspects of Einstein's General Relativity Theory that indicate how moving matter can create unusual gravitational effects. When I saw Figure 5 in Dr. Forward's article, the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. I instantly saw how the moving matter pattern that Dr. Forward describes as necessary to generate a gravitational dipole was exactly the same as the plasma ring pattern described in the physics article discussed above! If Fouche's description is even close to correct, then the TR-3B utilizes this little known loophole in General Relativity Theory to create it's antigravity effects! Even though the TR-3B can only supposedly cancel 89% of gravity (and inertia) today, there is no reason why the technology can't be improved to exceed 100% and achieve true antigravity capability!

In theory, this same moving matter pattern could be mechanically reproduced by mounting a bunch of small gyroscopes all around the larger ring, with their axis on the larger ring, and then spinning both the gyroscopes and the ring at high speeds. However, as Dr. Forward points out any such mechanical system would probably fly apart before any significant antigravity effects could be generated. However, as Dr. Forward states, "By using electromagnetic forces to contain rotating systems, it would be possible for the masses to reach relativistic velocities; thus a comparatively small amount of matter, if dense enough and moving fast enough, could produce usable gravitational effects."

The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic speeds would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If the plasma really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are also moving in a tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions would be moving probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times faster than the bulk plasma spin, in order to execute their "screw thread" motions. It is quite conceivable that the ions could be accelerated to relativistic speeds in this manner. I am guessing that you would probably want to strip the free electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged plasma, since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and reduce the efficiency of the antigravity device.

One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr. Fouche's claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also reduced by 89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is triangular shaped. Since it still requires conventional thrusters for propulsion, the thrusters would need to be located outside of the "mass reduction zone" or else the mass of the thruster's reaction material would also be reduced, making them terribly inefficient. Since it requires a minimum of 3 legs to have a stable stool, it follows that they would need a minimum of 3 thrusters to have a stable aerospace platform. Three thrusters, located outside of the plasma ring, plus appropriate structural support, would naturally lead to a triangular shape for the vehicle.

I was extremely skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claimed size for the TR-3B, of 600 feet across. At first, I thought that this must be a typo. Why would anyone in their right mind build a "Tactical Reconnaissance" vehicle 2 football fields long? They must be nuts! However, the answer to this may also be found in Dr. Forward's paper. As Dr. Forward's puts it, "...even the most optimistic calculations indicate that very large devices will be required to create usable gravitational forces. Antigravity...like all modern sciences, will require special projects involving large sums of money, men, and energy."

FYI: This article has been posted to KeelyNet. You have permission to post it on your Web site, as long as proper creditation is provided.

P.S. Dr. Forward has also written a number of other articles that may be of interest to readers of this list. They are located at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/TechPubs.html.








MainPage
http://www.rense.com



This Site Served by TheHostP