NASA's Mars Exploration Program

[hippo]

Cutting edge science benefiting us all - or billions wasted when people on earth are without food and clean water..

.....and of course is really happening at all ? 

  

[limpid]

1 hour ago, hippo said:

Cutting edge science benefiting us all - or billions wasted when people on earth are without food and clean water..

.....and of course is really happening at all ? 

What's your opinion?

[mjmooney]

Nowhere near as big a waste of money as nuclear weapons, footballers' wages and 90% of the 'entertainment' industry. 

[Rodders]

offers far more to human progress in the broad strokes than the **** who game systems and defraud nations of billions in potential revenue to support their societies. It's exciting and fascinating to see what happens next.

[hippo]

41 minutes ago, limpid said:

What's your opinion?

Im interested in this sort of thing - But can't help think that money could be better spent. 

[PieFacE]

I think it's absolutely fantastic. 

There's a LOT of money in the world that could be better spent elsewhere but isn't. Science as a whole doesn't get enough funding as it is. So a project like this pleases me hugely. Could almost go as far to say it romantically nourishes me. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by PieFacE

[BOF]

It has been proven time and time again that every dollar given to NASA is received back hundreds and thousands of times over in technological advancement. "Oh why can't you give it to the hungry instead" is often trotted out by the uninitiated or the vacuously argumentative - then NASA develop a way of literally printing food for astronauts - which can quite obviously translate into feeding the aforementioned hungry.  The innovations from space travel and space exploration in general from which humanity has benefitted directly and indirectly is amazing and almost incalculable - and not always the obvious and big stuff either.

Suffice to say I believe it is well worth the money.  It is well worth so much more money in fact - what with us wrecking the place too, and as Mike has said, it's far more financially beneficial; not to mention beneficial in other ways; than a vast proportion of what governments do end up spending their money and research on.

 

Quote

Now that 3D-printing technology has become more vital and relevant than ever, Silicon Valley startup BeeHex has harnessed this technology to 3D print pizza. Yes, you read that right. Edible, cheesy, delicious pizza can now be printed by a pre-programmed robot.

Funded by a grant from NASA, the purpose of this invention was to create a way for astronauts to select and produce delicious food for themselves on missions. As manned missions to Mars become an ever-increasing possibility, astronauts might be spending much more time in space. To save space-goers from the drudgery of choking down freeze-dried, pre-packaged “space food” day after day, month after month, NASA decided it was time to develop a way to cook in space.

 

[Demitri_C]

I'd rather money  put into this than paying premier league players 100k a week for kicking a ball

Edited November 28, 2018 by Demitri_C

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, BOF said:

It has been proven time and time again that every dollar given to NASA is received back hundreds and thousands of times over in technological advancement. "Oh why can't you give it to the hungry instead" is often trotted out by the uninitiated or the vacuously argumentative - then NASA develop a way of literally printing food for astronauts - which can quite obviously translate into feeding the aforementioned hungry.  The innovations from space travel and space exploration in general from which humanity has benefitted directly and indirectly is amazing and almost incalculable - and not always the obvious and big stuff either.

Suffice to say I believe it is well worth the money.  It is well worth so much more money in fact - what with us wrecking the place too, and as Mike has said, it's far more financially beneficial; not to mention beneficial in other ways; than a vast proportion of what governments do end up spending their money and research on.

 

 

The printing of food is a luxury so astronauts don't have to eat freeze dried food (which can last years and decades) and apparently isn't even that bad for taste. I don't foresee it as a means to feed the hungry en masse. Many are so destitute they can't afford a meal, forget about the latest technology in comfort developed for space exploration.

We may benefit from a technological standpoint as a result of NASA's endeavours. From a humanitarian perspective the priority and investments should be with looking after ourselves and one another as well as the planet we live on first and foremost. Many don't have access to a lifestyle that reaps the rewards of the technological advancements made as a result of space exploration.

Don't get me wrong, I see the benefits that have come as a result.

I think people advocating for using the money elsewhere for things like feeding the hungry are increasingly aware of the gap between rich and poor combined with the cost of living and that many are struggling to make ends meet. Democracy means power of the people. Rule by law. Government based on the consent of the governed. This trip to Mars (while it may be significant) represents more taxpayer dollars going toward another government mission which doesn't immediately go toward solving the glaring problems we are facing right here at home on earth.

[BOF]

1 minute ago, A'Villan said:

The printing of food is a luxury so astronauts don't have to eat freeze dried food (which can last years and decades) and apparently isn't even that bad for taste. I don't foresee it as a means to feed the hungry en masse.

You're missing the point.  The point is that some of the money given to NASA has resulted in the baseline technology to print food.  How it's used by others is up to those who want; or don't want; to feed the hungry.  The point is that NASA has not wasted their funding.  They have used it in a potentially massively beneficial way to humanity which; if utilised correctly; could go a long way towards eliminating world hunger.  Call that fanciful, but the underlying technology is that massive.  And that's ONE example I gave.  There are many more.  Anyone who can't or won't see the benefits of NASA's research can't have read up on it properly.

[A'Villan]

3 minutes ago, BOF said:

You're missing the point.  The point is that some of the money given to NASA has resulted in the baseline technology to print food.  How it's used by others is up to those who want; or don't want; to feed the hungry.  The point is that NASA has not wasted their funding.  They have used it in a potentially massively beneficial way to humanity which; if utilised correctly; could go a long way towards eliminating world hunger.  Call that fanciful, but the underlying technology is that massive.  And that's ONE example I gave.  There are many more.  Anyone who can't or won't see the benefits of NASA's research can't have read up on it properly.

I'm glad you clarified because I do think I overlooked the focal point of your post perhaps.

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the printing technology but from the article you posted there is no mention of it being equipped to feed people en masse or go toward ending world hunger. I would say it insinuates that the purpose of the technology is so that astronauts will enjoy a more favourable cuisine selection in future.

If there is scope to achieve what you suggest, whether fanciful or not, then I wholeheartedly agree with you it is a marvelous achievement.

[mjmooney]

I don't think I'd like printed food. It would taste all inky... 

[villakram]

It's worth noting that a NASA mission is not a done on a whim. Typical missions have a 10-20yr lead time during which a large group of researchers/engineers and students work on the project. This does not count the 5-10yrs prior to acceptance of the mission during which the mission proposal is developed and refined. In order to be accepted, so many levels of review must be passed. Things that get launched are meaningful and have to compete to get that slot and capitol investment. Anyway, the majority of NASA's budget has been wasted developing that big stupid rocket in order to keep the strategic launch capability intact.

The idea that the money is outright wasted by trying to find answers to fundamental questions is bizarre. No art either, sport pah, literature ha! Food (bread and staples, cut that fancy shit out)/fuel (oil and coal only) is all that matters. Asking these questions and probing the deepest corners of the human mind & soul are so fundamental to our being. To question the investment of such a tiny fraction of our wealth in these fields is quite sad really.

GPS, solar panels and the internet are all the pretty much a direct result of such blue sky research. The list is pretty endless.

 

[chrisp65]

I'm not sure we can do the rich footballer vs space exploration comparison.

Firstly, it's kinda different budgets. Secondly, even if it isn't different budgets, we choose to spend our money on Sky subscriptions and replica shirts and £45 tickets and all that. If the players aren't the ones to profit from their TV rights, who should?

But back to the OP. yeah, it's a good thing, it drives forward technology and learning. We need more investment in things that could benefit us. Imagine a world where we invested heavily in insulation tech, rather than nuclear power. Or in solar tech, rather than nuclear power. or in geo physics and thermal power, rather than nuclear power.

 

[desensitized43]

Scientific research by NASA is never money wasted but the payback is often slow and sometimes difficult to quantify. Smoke detectors, Solar panels, LEDs, Velcro, Medical monitoring technology, Water purification systems. memory foam. All either invented or advanced significantly as a result of dollars spent by NASA.

[limpid]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I'm not sure we can do the rich footballer vs space exploration comparison.

Firstly, it's kinda different budgets. Secondly, even if it isn't different budgets, we choose to spend our money on Sky subscriptions and replica shirts and £45 tickets and all that. If the players aren't the ones to profit from their TV rights, who should?

NASA is CapeE. PL is OpEx

Probably.

[lapal_fan]

What NASA build and develop eventually (and unfortunately) end up being commercialised by companies because of capitalism.  

Which is partly why in 2018, some of us live in houses which were built 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, cars are quite expensive and "stuff" like iphones are 1000 quid. 

Without programmes like this, we'd still be living in caves, eating shit, instead of 20 mcnuggets for 5 quid. 

 

[Paddywhack]

In my simple little head, the term 'a waste of money' never makes sense.

Unless NASA are loading cash in rockets and firing them in to the sun, it can't be wasted. It's still floating around in the....economy. The economy world as it's known. 

Same with footballers wages. That money will still be circulated in the economy thing, paying other people's wages for massages and other things footballers like.

[limpid]

7 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

Without programmes like this, we'd still be living in caves, eating shit, instead of 20 mcnuggets for 5 quid. 

Give me £50 and I'll think about it.

[Mark Albrighton]

5 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

In my simple little head, the term 'a waste of money' never makes sense.

Unless NASA are loading cash in rockets and firing them in to the sun, it can't be wasted. It's still floating around in the....economy. The economy world as it's known. 

Same with footballers wages. That money will still be circulated in the economy thing, paying other people's wages for massages and other things footballers like.