The value of manned space flight?

[Ryujin]

The danger I see in a lot of arguments for, essentially, abandoning earth is that they seem to be giving up on solving our self-made problems and opting for escape, like the humans in Wall-E. I see three problems here:

1. It is basically giving up on the vast majority of humanity, not to mention the rest of nature.
2. It's an excuse.
3. It relies on magical thinking. If we can't solve these problems, how are we going to solve the massively more complex ones presented by space travel and colonization? Conversely, if we can solve those problems, then surely we can solve these ones first.

Edit: Like, we already know how to fix climate change. There are plenty of perfectly viable plans that involve far less expense than space colonization, for which we don't even have the beginning of a plan. And yet we lack the will to deal with our self-created issue - a substantial number of people refuse to even accept that it is a problem. But space travel will fix things?

Who is saying anything about "abandoning" Earth?

 

[Dire Bare]

Wait, you think social spending made that happen?

Yes.

Medical and scientific research also, but yes, social spending.

 

[Dire Bare]

I avoided saying this because most of the “solve the problems on Earth” crowd magically forget about all the corruption and graft that prevent the money we are spending from working. The solution is always to spend more and never to fix the graft and corruption.

Magically forget the greed, corruption, and incompetence of our fellow humans? Especially those in charge? Sure, okay, we all "magically" forgot that.

And none of that affects our space programs?!?!

 

[Dire Bare]

Who is saying anything about "abandoning" Earth?

Oh good lord.

Of course, not all who support funding space programs wish to "abandon" Earth.

But looking at the colonization of other bodies as a way to "save" humanity is not only a theme in sci-fi stories, but a belief many hold . . . including a not small percentage of the oligarchs who control so much of our modern society.

 

[Tigris]

Your source, please?

Where was your source for your 3 times statement?

Also I am sure you find similar things by googling about other universities and I dont want to reveal my university here.


EDIT: I just googled the second closest big university (more than 1 billion budget). Factor of 5.2 not as good as the one I was, but still far above 3.

Well by that logic we should only research one thing ever. Whatever gives the highest ROI. We should not research anything which gives a lower ROI than that one thing.

Because a university only researches a single thing when having 1.5 billions? Thats the thing, the university has a bigger impact because it does do a variety of things.

But I am all for cutting money for research with really low impact, no need to finance the hobbies of some professors.

 

[The Firebird]

Space is harder to settle than present day Earth, easier to settle than another planet, and in time could be easier to settle than staying on a dying planet - as scaling of the tech advances.

I am highly skeptical of this claim--in what sense is earth a dying planet? If dead = Mars then climate change isn't even a fever.

 

[Ryujin]

Oh good lord.

Of course, not all who support funding space programs wish to "abandon" Earth.

But looking at the colonization of other bodies as a way to "save" humanity is not only a theme in sci-fi stories, but a belief many hold . . . including a not small percentage of the oligarchs who control so much of our modern society.

Could we get to the point that not all our human eggs are in one basket? I have no idea, but it would be nice of we could.

<Insert commentary about how many problems could be solved by sending a bunch of oligarchs on one-way space trips here>

 

[Ryujin]

Where was your source for your 3 times statement?

Also I am sure you find similar things by googling about other universities and I dont want to reveal my university here.

New Report Shows NASA's $75.6 Billion Boost to US Economy - NASA

NASA's work, including its Moon to Mars exploration approach, is advancing science and technology for the Artemis Generation, while also driving significant

www.nasa.gov

 

[Umbran]

I'm not arguing against funding crewed and robotic space flight, but . . .

Yes, we spend plenty of money on our problems here on Earth. But enough?

Look, folks, NASA is 0.35% of the Federal budget. A fractuon of one percent. You can't solve major world problems by scraping funds out of NASA.

Plus, as previously noted, NASA is a net positive, economically. It pays for itself a couple times over, creates jobs, and all that. Cutting it without a specific, really good plan would make economic problems worse, not better.

 

[Umbran]

Where was your source for your 3 times statement?

I will dig that up for you when I am not on my phone.

Also I am sure you find similar things by googling about other universities and I dont want to reveal my university here.

I wasn't looking for your University, specifically. I was looking for information on what was being considered part of the budget being applied for the comparison, and how the boost was measured.

Because a university only researches a single thing when having 1.5 billions? Thats the thing, the university has a bigger impact because it does do a variety of things.

But I am all for cutting money for research with really low impact, no need to finance the hobbies of some professors.

What you may not realize is that I am a product of science university education. I have no problem with the idea that universities are a net boost. I just want to look at the assertion to make sure it is an apples to apples comparison. You know, like a good scientist should do.

However, I am NOT a fan of duffers deciding what is, or isn't likely to "pay off". That suggestion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science pays off - unpredictably.