The value of manned space flight?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

All I have to say is: If we can figure out how to live on Mars, we sure as heck can figure out how to make Earth stay livable. And we better do that quick, because we won't like it on Mars.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

And we better do that quick, because we won't like it on Mars.

For one thing, it ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.

 

[Ryujin]

That launch was pretty cool. I was watching it on the BBC and I kinda wished the presenters would just stop talking and filling air with nothingness, as I'd rather have just listened to the NASA comms (fortunately they did that at T-5 and didn't start babbling nothing again until a few minutes after launch).

The NASA feed cut away to show the spectators as the solid booster separation was happening, so I missed that

 

[Morrus]

The NASA feed cut away to show the spectators as the solid booster separation was happening, so I missed that

It’ll all be on YouTube at least.

 

[Pale Violet Light]

We spend more now on fixing problems than we have ever spent yet we have not solved hunger. We have not provided homes for the homeless

We will never solve hunger, because a) it’s a very difficult problem, and b) there is no will to do so, as people would rather blame the unfortunate for their problems rather than address systematic issues. Furthermore, life is not all or nothing. Social spending has alleviated distress and suffering for billions of people - that is in and of itself a worthwhile goal.

 

[Belen]

We will never solve hunger, because a) it’s a very difficult problem, and b) there is no will to do so, as people would rather blame the unfortunate for their problems rather than address systematic issues. Furthermore, life is not all or nothing. Social spending has alleviated distress and suffering for billions of people - that is in and of itself a worthwhile goal.

I do not disagree.

I fundamentally disagree with the “we should solve our problems on Earth first” crowd.

They will never have enough money to satisfy them.

 

[Pale Violet Light]

I fundamentally disagree with the “we should solve our problems on Earth first” crowd.

Oh yeah?! Well I guess I agree then! I would add that I believe the space flight vs social spending is a false dichotomy. Money for space research could come from a number of other pots, say, for instance, a bloated military budget.

 

[Umbran]

Not necessary someone was faster

I just found 2 articles of 2 different universities which did similar calculations than the nasa one by googling 1 minute each. So do the research yourself, like a good scientist would.

Dude, it was a simple request for information. I'm not your enemy. I'll ignore the snark.

But, science isn't where each person starts from scratch, and re-invents the wheel on their own. It is a practice of taking someone else's work, verifying it, and then moving forward from there. In science, it isn't every person for themselves - it is each person standing on the shoulders of the one before. If I wanted to look into what you said, the smartest thing for me to do is to start where you were, not go back to the drawing board myself.

If you didn't want to help, that's fine. But don't spit that back at me as science, because it isn't.

Also you where the one to throw out the times 3 without checking how big the impact of other research is.

Other research paying off doesn't invalidate what I said. Why should I have checked on other research?

I mean, this reads like I am supposed to have looked into this before anyone, including yourself, had even mentioned it. I am not sure how I was supposed to have that foreknowledge. I cannot see the future.

So it is ok for you to call me a duffer, because you dont like my oppinion?

Uh, no. Again, not being able to see the future, I didn't realize you were going to personally claim the authority to prioritize scientific research.

If you weren't going to claim that authority, how are you, personally, one of the duffers I'm referring to?

If science was completly unpredictable, no company would have a big R&D section spending billions on a year long roadmap, but they do exist.

As an example - as a broad rule of thumb, approximately 90% of all pharmacological research fails to get through clinical trials. (citation here). Though there are some areas where success rates rise as high as 25%, there are other areas where success rates are even lower than 10%.

Again, broadly speaking, organizations have to take a "shotgun" approach to research - looking into may things, in order to find one that succeeds and pays off. One of the reasons why governments get into the business of funding research is that corporations often cannot tolerate such failure rates, as they need to make a profit, while governments usually do not.