Wait, you think all the moon missions were useless, and only done because they were popular for a brief period? Do you feel the same about the space station, and the regular shuttle missions that are likewise not very closely followed? How about the Mars Rover?

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:It's no coincidence that the first moon landing occurred in 1969, one year after perhaps the most chaotic year this country had seen since the great depression, maybe the Civil War. There was mass upheaval and dissatisfaction here, so our leaders tried to distract us by saying, "Lookee, Junior, at the pretty lights up in the sky!"

Yes, it's obvious that we precisely timed our technolgical development, beginning when the space race properly kicked off in 1957, to come to a head after a year of great social upheaval. I'm sure we actually kept the rocket on the ground, in fact, betting that we'd need to use it to distract the populace before the Russians managed to beat us there, and when we heard they had that damn hippie Woodstock shit planned out we were like "Fuckitall, boys, now's the time to show them what we've got!" I'm sure that's exactly what happened, as opposed to the alternative where you're full of shit.

The space program is an integral part of our culture. We need this to inspire more young people in America to pursue careers in science and engineering. To be overly idealistic, it's the triumph of the scientific method over fundamentalism. We also need to give the rational people a way to get off of this planet before it gets destroyed either by an asteroid or crazy fundamentalists. Because that is inevidable.

The space program is so often the thing people focus on when cutting spending, I guess because it seems abstract to those uninterested in science. There are many positive side effects of having a space program.

We will always have to weigh humanitarian factors in deciding what programs get funded.. But if we were truly a humanitarian culture we would be looking at reducing the size of our military, not this anti-intellectual stance about how the space program is just a way for rich nerds to have fun.

jason smith

We also need to give the rational people a way to get off of this planet before it gets destroyed either by an asteroid or crazy fundamentalists. Because that is inevitable.

haha, thats what you think, I bet the holler rollers will be sent to spread jesus across the galaxy before I ever get there.

But if we were truly a humanitarian culture we would be looking at reducing the size of our military, not this anti-intellectual stance about how the space program is just a way for rich nerds to have fun.

i am constantly amazed by the hubble telescope, I know the international space station has applications as a laboratory in space. I also enjoy it when the little probey things land on mars. I get these things because their main goal is knowledge - whats over there, what does mars look like, what happens if you fart in space.

But I don't think we should mindlessly wave flags and get excited about a seventh trip to the moon which reuses a forty year old plan note for note. Not a lot has happened up there in the intervening years and we are not likely to learn anything that I couldn't have figured out with a large telescope in my back garden. So I think on balance it's a total waste of money. Not every space trip is worth it.

galanter wrote:.

I feel sorry for people who don't empathize with the need to... answer questions of literally cosmic proportions.

Like "people of faith"?

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:.

I feel sorry for people who don't empathize with the need to... answer questions of literally cosmic proportions.

Like "people of faith"?

Cheap shot. "People of faith" are interested in the questions. They just disagree with you as to the answers.

I know of no military systems that require space travel to the moon or beyond.

NASA has a strong record of international collaboration.

Antero wrote:

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:It's no coincidence that the first moon landing occurred in 1969, one year after perhaps the most chaotic year this country had seen since the great depression, maybe the Civil War. There was mass upheaval and dissatisfaction here, so our leaders tried to distract us by saying, "Lookee, Junior, at the pretty lights up in the sky!"

Yes, it's obvious that we precisely timed our technolgical development, beginning when the space race properly kicked off in 1957, to come to a head after a year of great social upheaval. I'm sure we actually kept the rocket on the ground, in fact, betting that we'd need to use it to distract the populace before the Russians managed to beat us there, and when we heard they had that damn hippie Woodstock shit planned out we were like "Fuckitall, boys, now's the time to show them what we've got!" I'm sure that's exactly what happened, as opposed to the alternative where you're full of shit.

I guess I'm equally full of shit to think that the current administration's desire to return to the moon is not pure in its intent? Why, after 37 years, would it seem crucial to go to the moon now? You don't think there might be some desire to distract an increasingly disgruntled populace so enamored of the romance of space travel that some of even its most intelligent members revert to starry-eyed kids when considering it?

You know, I really want to vote NC, but there's nothihng NC about it. Well, there's being able to say "Hey, we went to the moon." But after that... Crap Crap Crap.

We can't make cough medicine that tastes decent let alone some hurricane proof levees. Let's get shit rolling here on Earth before we futz around with the Moon and Mars.