Would you donate money to nasa

[Queen of Hamsters]

Here's a short list for you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...nventions.html

Not too shabby, but alas the money I donate won't be going to space related things when it can go to help people/animals here and now. I see it far more likely that we'd end up with an Elysium situation than the salvation of mankind with the colonization idea.

[Skroe]

do you know how much it consted to go to the moon
its around 150 billio$ in today s money
the large hadron colider only costed 10 billion $

$150 billion is not a lot of money spread out over a decade.

The ISS has cost about $150 billion over 30 years

The Mars Mission, all said and done, will cost about $200 billion over 30 years.

[GennGreymane]

You donate to it every year when you pay taxes.

I had no idea taxation was donation.

[the game]

Not too shabby, but alas the money I donate won't be going to space related things when it can go to help people/animals here and now. I see it far more likely that we'd end up with an Elysium situation than the salvation of mankind with the colonization idea.

So I assume you don't use anything on that list.

[chipwood]

At this point, no. I'm all for space exploration but NASA seems set on a manned mission to Mars. There are much better things that they could be focusing on that would cost less and advance science further. For example, one of their justifications for sending a manned mission is that there are things that a manned expedition can do that an unmanned mission can't - we should be focused on creating unmanned probes that CAN do those things. 90% of the cost/resources of a manned mission are purely to deal with the fact that it's manned (mostly for life support and a return trip). And there's no political reason for it like there was during the Apollo missions.

[Skroe]

No, I wouldn't. Why? Because I don't want to, that's why.
If I donate money, it's to help animals or victims of a disaster. I highly doubt mankind will ever colonize other planets, and focus should be on sorting shit out on the planet we already have.

Americans will be colonizing other planets. Europe will tag along.

The rest of the world? Eh... I rather doubt it.

[the game]

At this point, no. I'm all for space exploration but NASA seems set on a manned mission to Mars. There are much better things that they could be focusing on that would cost less and advance science further. For example, one of their justifications for sending a manned mission is that there are things that a manned expedition can do that an unmanned mission can't - we should be focused on creating unmanned probes that CAN do those things. 90% of the cost/resources of a manned mission are purely to deal with the fact that it's manned (mostly for life support and a return trip). And there's no political reason for it like there was during the Apollo missions.

Putting a human crew on another planet is the first step in the direction of colonization.

[Queen of Hamsters]

So I assume you don't use anything on that list.

I'm sure I do, and I also have use of plenty of things that came through advances made without space travel.

- - - Updated - - -

Americans will be colonizing other planets. Europe will tag along.

The rest of the world? Eh... I rather doubt it.

Rich Americans, rich Europeans. The rest? I rather doubt it.

[Flatspriest]

The sad thing is that NASA is already able to actually turn a profit...just the rest of the government takes the money instead of leaving it for more research.

[Skroe]

I'm sure I do, and I also have use of plenty of things that came through advances made without space travel.

- - - Updated - - -



Rich Americans, rich Europeans. The rest? I rather doubt it.

No. The US Government + Private Industry in a public-private partnership, just like most of the Space Program up to this point.

Mars will need contractors who build infrastructure, not billionaire tourists.

Want to make some money quick? Make a robot that can autonomously efficiently and economically process Mars-analog soil into something very much like concrete. Mars will need lots of those. It'll be more construction site than vacation home for many, many years.

[Deleted]

No, I would not. I occasionally donate to other organisations, that's enough for me.

[chipwood]

Putting a human crew on another planet is the first step in the direction of colonization.

Actually, I'd argue that finding a suitable planet to colonize is the first step. We've already been to the moon, and there's a reason we've never spent the money to go back in 40 years.

[Deleted]

If I were to donate, yes, it would be a good chance they would get some of it as at least I could make sure it all goes directly to them instead of ending up in some overpaid charity CEOs pocket.

[Skroe]

Actually, I'd argue that finding a suitable planet to colonize is the first step.

Mars is as suitable as we'll find in the Solar System.

The other options are too barren or too far.

[Gsara]

Orbital ATK is a pretty crap company that is the anti-SpaceX.

While SpaceX slowly and methodically pioneered new technologies, and built its space program from the rocket up, litterally, Orbital (pre-ATK buyout) has been plundering government rocket technology wherever it could find it. It bought a bunch of decomissioned Peacekeeper MX ICBMs and turned them into the Minotaur IV. It bought a bunch of Russian Nk-33 engines from the Russians in the 1990s (which were part of the Soviet Lunar program), refirbished them, gave it a new name, and mounted it on a rocket it called "Antares". It plunder patent after patent. It's merger with ATK, this country's chief Solid Rocket Engine manufactuer, is again, about plundering taxpayer-paid for tech.

SpaceX has earned it. They've earned everything they've acheived which is why they have the most advanced space launch program in the world, by far, at the moment. It will be at least a decade before anyone (except maybe BlueOrigin) lands like they do.

Orbital is a scavenger. It is an old school Space company, but it's tendencies represent the absolute worst in the early 2000s Space Rush where a bunch of new space companies (including SpaceX) popped up, and most leveraged their ambitions on plundering retired government designs and hardware. Even Sierra Nevada did this: the Dreamchaser is the NASA HL-20, a Space Station Freedom-era design, made real.

SpaceX simply did it legitimately and these others didn't, and as such, have had a harder time. SpaceX took an abandoned NASA/DoD/Northrop design for a rocket, for landing and for an engine (namely the TR-106/TR-107 as part of the Space Launch Initiative), hired away all the people who worked on it, and built it little by little.

Of course, the point I was making is they all get government funding anyways through subsidies and government contracts. So why would anyone donate to Nasa when we already pay for it and contribute a large sum of money to these other companies through taxes.

[I Push Buttons]

Actually, I'd argue that finding a suitable planet to colonize is the first step.

Well technically we could put people just about anywhere gravity won't crush them.

Just a matter of the long term implications and costs of doing that. By long term implications I mean shit like the effects on human bodies and what not... Like if money was no object we could build a base on the moon tomorrow and put a lot of people up there, but if those people lived there for like ten years or something they probably couldn't live on Earth again... And we can't just let them die if ten years from now we didn't want to pay for it anymore and that kind of shit...

[Skroe]

Well technically we could put people just about anywhere gravity won't crush them.

Just a matter of the long term implications and costs of doing that. By long term implications I mean shit like the effects on human bodies and what not... Like if money was no object we could build a base on the moon tomorrow and put a lot of people up there, but if those people lived there for like ten years or something they probably couldn't live on Earth again... And we can't just let them die if ten years from now we didn't want to pay for it anymore and that kind of shit...

Half the complexity of any Mars mission is the trip back. After the first two trips, missions should be long duration, or even one way. Think 5000 days on Mars, rather than 500.

If we're going to go to Mars, we should be going there to live, not to visit, after the first expedition or so.

[chipwood]

Mars is as suitable as we'll find in the Solar System.

The other options are too barren or too far.

Exactly my point - and Mars is too barren and too far too. Even the moon is better since it "only" takes a few days to get there.

- - - Updated - - -

If we're going to go to Mars, we should be going there to live, not to visit, after the first expedition or so.

And a LOT more unmanned missions before we even think about doing that. There is SO much more exploration that can be done with unmanned probes, especially if we push the AI technology.

[Iceman2500]

I already donate to NASA; it's called taxes.

[Deleted]

Putting a human crew on another planet is the first step in the direction of colonization.

dude are you stupid why would i pay 50 times more to live on Mars where is worse than Earth?