A Moonbase now. junk the ISS moneypit

[Trotz]

Just more inside the system work by tedious bureaucrats happy to get a paycheque. Salmonella is not a major killer in the world, check it out at WHO.

When someone does get salmonella than it's either poisoning or gross incompetence. I don't know any restaurant that would use the same cutting board for raw meats and vegetables.


Regardless you are correct, in that, most of the money on the ISS has been lost in the bureaucratic pit of corruption. The lower level bureaucrats are happy that they're paid $40,000 to push pencils at a brain-dead job. And the higher level bureaucrat and politicians, with access to tax payer's money, just want some under the table kickbacks.

Corruption was a serious problem in the Soviet Union and it's increasingly becoming more common here, it'ld only be a matter of time until the crown corporations are sold for $10.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

When someone does get salmonella than it's either poisoning or gross incompetence. I don't know any restaurant that would use the same cutting board for raw meats and vegetables.


Regardless you are correct, in that, most of the money on the ISS has been lost in the bureaucratic pit of corruption. The lower level bureaucrats are happy that they're paid $40,000 to push pencils at a brain-dead job. And the higher level bureaucrat and politicians, with access to tax payer's money, just want some under the table kickbacks.

Corruption was a serious problem in the Soviet Union and it's increasingly becoming more common here, it'ld only be a matter of time until the crown corporations are sold for $10.

The pencil necked geeks have found a brilliant way to take money that ought to go to astronauts and moon base equipment. Yes, those geeks and nerds are smarter than we thought. A tragedy really. Enough satellites going out into the universe and landing on the moons of Jupitor. Stop the silliness that is retarding progress.

Oh, we're not corrupt in our modern western nations, oh no. It's those other guys that are rotten to the core, they are so political and have no concern for the common good. For Congressmen, it's about creating jobs in their districts. And for MPs, the same thing.

Found this on google by punching in ISS money pit, an excerpt

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1632890,00.html

Is the Space Station a Money Pit?

By Jeff Kluger Thursday, Jun. 14, 200

​

The larger question, as always, is why we're bothering with this whole program in the first place. The station was originally proposed 23 years ago as an $8 billion orbiting laboratory that would perform cutting-edge biological research, manufacture new and highly marketable materials impossible to make in the gravity environment of Earth and generally pay for itself many times over.

Close to two decades past deadline and now carrying a projected $100 billion price tag, it has not returned a lick of good science — nor is it likely to.
​

 

[Machjo]

That'll never happen. We have billions of people who can't agree on anything, we can't in Canada. In other less democratic countries, people are held back from doing what they want to do. So they come here.

Time to move up and move on, we have the tech to go to the stars, there is no perfect time in the future, the future is now.

How about you provide the unemployed with a better education so that they can make a greater contribution to society, and once they're paying taxes too, we'd then have more money with which to reach the stars. Would it not make more sense to put the unemployed to work first before worrying about reaching for the stars? Until then, reaching for the star ought to be a private endeavour for those who can afford the luxory.

I think that by exploring space we will be able to solve some of the problem we now have here on the Earth and will have in the future.

It may be true to a degree. The question is, could we not solve many more problems with the same money here on earth? Looking at it that way, any taxpayer-funded space exploration ought to have clearly defined goals published online for the public to read, along with an explanation of why this research is so important, why it could not be conducted on earth, and with regular progress updates. Short of that, we should not be spending any public money on space exploration.

By the way, governments cannot even afford to provide quality education and skills training for the unemployed. Where in the world are they finding the money to explore space?

How about building quality walking and cycling paths in our cities. For crying out loud, even in Ottawa, Canada's capital, there are roads with unpaved sidewalks in the suburbs! Where do we find the money for space exploration when we can't even find money to make our roads safe for pedestrians and cyclists?!

Why not have a moon base and the ISS? Its requires less energy to move material from the moon to the ISS orbit than from the earth to ISS orbit. Mining and manufacturing on the moon and near earth asteroids to make spacecraft will eventually be less expensive than trying to move material from the earth to space.

You're missing the whole point? What are we going to use ships for? Who would want to live in a lunar bubble tank all their lives? And beyond building ships funded by taxpayer so as to look cool exploring space, of what practical benefit would it be?

The ISS is pretty cool to watch flyover. Here is a link to give sighting times for your location.
Human Space Flight (HSF) - Realtime Data

If its a clear night, you can't miss it.

It's a pretty damn expensive cool factor. Shades, Nike shoes, a boom box, a skate board, and some gel in the hair would achieve the same result at far les cost.

According to the link I posted above from the Wall Street Journal, we can already do this with existing tech. The question is why we aren't doing this right now.

The problem could be that the USA seems to need a "story" of some sort. Like the actor that asks the director of the scene, "What's my motivation?" The director replies, "A job, you moron, do it." A bit of butt kicking is required here as all the tools are ready.

This could be one reason why so many say the USA has lost its leadership role in the world. Got a chance to work on the sexiest and most technologically project known to man, and they're sitting in the rec room playing video games and watching pornos. Pardon me while I yawn.

Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you have to. Also, is it preferable to live in a country that may not have all kinds of cool activities in space to boast about but that at least has a stable economy, educated population, low inflation, low Bank rates, and low government debt; or is it preferable to lie in a country that has all kinds of cool space missions to brag about while it's going bankrupt?

think about it?

 

[petros]

Just more inside the system work by tedious bureaucrats happy to get a paycheque. Salmonella is not a major killer in the world, check it out at WHO.

Not anymore thanks to research.

 

[Trotz]

How about you provide the unemployed with a better education so that they can make a greater contribution to society, and once they're paying taxes too, we'd then have more money with which to reach the stars. Would it not make more sense to put the unemployed to work first before worrying about reaching for the stars? Until then, reaching for the star ought to be a private endeavour for those who can afford the luxory.



It may be true to a degree. The question is, could we not solve many more problems with the same money here on earth? Looking at it that way, any taxpayer-funded space exploration ought to have clearly defined goals published online for the public to read, along with an explanation of why this research is so important, why it could not be conducted on earth, and with regular progress updates. Short of that, we should not be spending any public money on space exploration.

By the way, governments cannot even afford to provide quality education and skills training for the unemployed. Where in the world are they finding the money to explore space?

How about building quality walking and cycling paths in our cities. For crying out loud, even in Ottawa, Canada's capital, there are roads with unpaved sidewalks in the suburbs! Where do we find the money for space exploration when we can't even find money to make our roads safe for pedestrians and cyclists?!



You're missing the whole point? What are we going to use ships for? Who would want to live in a lunar bubble tank all their lives? And beyond building ships funded by taxpayer so as to look cool exploring space, of what practical benefit would it be?



It's a pretty damn expensive cool factor. Shades, Nike shoes, a boom box, a skate board, and some gel in the hair would achieve the same result at far les cost.



Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you have to. Also, is it preferable to live in a country that may not have all kinds of cool activities in space to boast about but that at least has a stable economy, educated population, low inflation, low Bank rates, and low government debt; or is it preferable to lie in a country that has all kinds of cool space missions to brag about while it's going bankrupt?

think about it?

I've not been to Ottawa but I imagine it's better than Berlin, you don't even need to leave the downtown core to find dirt roads and unpaved streets. Certain areas of East Berlin were more backwards than actual cities in Ukraine and Russia, by which, you have actual fake buildings in Berlin.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

How about you provide the unemployed with a better education so that they can make a greater contribution to society, and once they're paying taxes too, we'd then have more money with which to reach the stars. Would it not make more sense to put the unemployed to work first before worrying about reaching for the stars? Until then, reaching for the star ought to be a private endeavour for those who can afford the luxory.

Private endeavours are for safe ventures, like space tourism where no one expects to die. Take some nice pictures and go back to a safe home. Nothing wrong with it, it has its place, but it is not the future.

Space exploration is for the brave because if pushes the frontiers. The frontiers are dangerous and risky, people die there because they are on the cutting edge, venturing into the unknown. They achieve the most and get the great rewards. The first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong will be remembered forever. Reaching for the stars is not a luxury of civilization, it is a necessity.

According to the Kennedy Space Center, a space shuttle launch costs about $450 million per mission. Double the price and I think you could drop tin cans on the moon and get to doing some useful work.
Kennedy Space Center FAQ

 

[ironsides]

According to the link I posted above from the Wall Street Journal, we can already do this with existing tech. The question is why we aren't doing this right now.

The problem could be that the USA seems to need a "story" of some sort. Like the actor that asks the director of the scene, "What's my motivation?" The director replies, "A job, you moron, do it." A bit of butt kicking is required here as all the tools are ready.

This could be one reason why so many say the USA has lost its leadership role in the world. Got a chance to work on the sexiest and most technologically project known to man, and they're sitting in the rec room playing video games and watching pornos. Pardon me while I yawn.

We probably do have the means to convert the minerals down here, but it is up there we need it, a system capable of working in the extreme heat and cold found on the Moon. We should/need have an up and running space shuttle program that is active, not one that is dying and waiting for something new that may not happen for a while. Nothing I would like to see more in my lifetime than construction begin on a real Moon Base. We will need the corporation and support from the world to go ahead with a project of this size?. Days are past when a single country can afford it.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

We probably do have the means to convert the minerals down here, but it is up there we need it, a system capable of working in the extreme heat and cold found on the Moon. We should/need have an up and running space shuttle program that is active, not one that is dying and waiting for something new that may not happen for a while. Nothing I would like to see more in my lifetime than construction begin on a real Moon Base. We will need the corporation and support from the world to go ahead with a project of this size?. Days are past when a single country can afford it.

World cooperation is essential as space is too big, expensive, and dangerous for any one country to explore. Once we start something like this, we'll get better and better at it, the tech will dramatically improve over time. There will be so many areas for new tech to development which will create numerous jobs. We need to experience this and put space exploration back in the media, front and centre, all the time.

But the USA has to take the lead, which they can right now by junking other usless programs. Then other countries like Canada, Japan, Eirope and others will join. Exploration is not for profit, it probes the cutting edge to allow tourism and mining to prosper behind them-which are taxed to pay for exploration. But without exploration, there is no minng, research or other profit making enterprises.

 

[petros]

Something is holding us back from settling the moon.

Gravity?

 

[darkbeaver]

Gravity?

Gravity is easily defeated by hopping off both feet, it is ludhuchriss to suggest that such nonsense might stop moon habitation, the true reason is the expence of a grow room. A moon base is impossible without cannabis.

 

[Machjo]

Private endeavours are for safe ventures, like space tourism where no one expects to die. Take some nice pictures and go back to a safe home. Nothing wrong with it, it has its place, but it is not the future.

Space exploration is for the brave because if pushes the frontiers. The frontiers are dangerous and risky, people die there because they are on the cutting edge, venturing into the unknown. They achieve the most and get the great rewards. The first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong will be remembered forever. Reaching for the stars is not a luxury of civilization, it is a necessity.

According to the Kennedy Space Center, a space shuttle launch costs about $450 million per mission. Double the price and I think you could drop tin cans on the moon and get to doing some useful work.
Kennedy Space Center FAQ

Everything you just said in this post is beautiful, poetic, but unfortunately totally empty rhetoric. You did not point out one simple factually example of how it can be of benefit to civilization.

Now I'm not denying that there may be benefits to civilization. However, if we cut through all the beautiful rhetoric and focus on facts, we'd find very quickly that there are far more important and pressing social issues to fix here on earth before space exploration truly is our best investment. You need a foundation before you can build a house. It's not just about the tech. I'm sure the tech is more than advanced enough already. It's about opportunity-cost as we call it in economics, not just financial but social and even civilizational too.

We probably do have the means to convert the minerals down here, but it is up there we need it, a system capable of working in the extreme heat and cold found on the Moon. We should/need have an up and running space shuttle program that is active, not one that is dying and waiting for something new that may not happen for a while. Nothing I would like to see more in my lifetime than construction begin on a real Moon Base. We will need the corporation and support from the world to go ahead with a project of this size?. Days are past when a single country can afford it.

Right. This is the kind of thing I'm referring to. If we can't even get our act together on earth for us to coordinate our activities efficiently on a world-wide scale, then how in the world will we ever succeed in this. Add to that that until countries have settled their differences on earth, the risk of a moonbase becoming a new focal point of military conflict is just too risky. And you think wars on earth are expensive? Such a world war that would involve the entire planet and the need to shoot down satellites, space craft and moonbases would bancrupt the planet. How would that promote civilizational advancement? first we have to remove all possible obstacles, be they technical, political, economic, social, etc. etc. etc. before we could have a stable programme of the sort.

 

[ironsides]

World cooperation is essential as space is too big, expensive, and dangerous for any one country to explore. Once we start something like this, we'll get better and better at it, the tech will dramatically improve over time. There will be so many areas for new tech to development which will create numerous jobs. We need to experience this and put space exploration back in the media, front and centre, all the time.

But the USA has to take the lead, which they can right now by junking other usless programs. Then other countries like Canada, Japan, Eirope and others will join. Exploration is not for profit, it probes the cutting edge to allow tourism and mining to prosper behind them-which are taxed to pay for exploration. But without exploration, there is no minng, research or other profit making enterprises.

We have to stop the down sizing of NASA that is happening now before anything else can be done. The Kennedy Space center is becoming more like Disney Land, they are using money from tourists and space buffs now to keep little things going. Private industry probably should get more involved as to investigating and exploiting the mineral reserves space has to offer. Unless there is some sort of threat I think the days of governments exploring for the sake of exploring are over. Profit will be the next motive for space exploration. Unfortunately.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Everything you just said in this post is beautiful, poetic, but unfortunately totally empty rhetoric. You did not point out one simple factually example of how it can be of benefit to civilization.

Now I'm not denying that there may be benefits to civilization. However, if we cut through all the beautiful rhetoric and focus on facts, we'd find very quickly that there are far more important and pressing social issues to fix here on earth before space exploration truly is our best investment. You need a foundation before you can build a house. It's not just about the tech. I'm sure the tech is more than advanced enough already. It's about opportunity-cost as we call it in economics, not just financial but social and even civilizational too.

Get a grip. So my sentences in your mind didn't offer benefits to society, yet you say the space program "may" have benefits. I think you may be one of those people who think what the prophet did one or two thousand years ago should be contemplated forever. Unless we find the best investment, do nothing, a good investment is just no adequate.

Unsure about the benefits of tech? Give up your PC, car, lights, and fridge for a weeks and get back to me.

We have to stop the down sizing of NASA that is happening now before anything else can be done. The Kennedy Space center is becoming more like Disney Land, they are using money from tourists and space buffs now to keep little things going. Private industry probably should get more involved as to investigating and exploiting the mineral reserves space has to offer. Unless there is some sort of threat I think the days of governments exploring for the sake of exploring are over. Profit will be the next motive for space exploration. Unfortunately.

Unless NASA gets on the ball, they will be renamed Need Another Space Agency.

 

[Machjo]

Get a grip. So my sentences in your mind didn't offer benefits to society, yet you say the space program "may" have benefits.

Indeed it may have benefits. When taxpayers' money is being spent on it, any benefits it may have ought to be clearly elaborated before any tax money is spent on it. Until then, spend the money on educating those who need it here on earth.

I think you may be one of those people who think what the prophet did one or two thousand years ago should be contemplated forever. Unless we find the best investment, do nothing, a good investment is just no adequate.

Huh? Could you clarify this sentence please? It's a little hard to answer when it's not even clear what you're trying to say here. Of course we want to be sure any money spent is being wisely used, if that's what you mean. If that is what you mean, then certainly you'd agree that any money spent on anything, not just space exploration, ought to be spent wisely.

Unsure about the benefits of tech? Give up your PC, car, lights, and fridge for a weeks and get back to me.

How did you go from space to tech? I thought we were talking about space exploration here, not technological development. If the objective is technological development, then we'd probably get a bigger bang for the buck researching earth-bound technologies... such as computers, cars, lights and fridges. Last I checked Henry Ford never walked the moon. Now you tell me, which would be more useful between earthbound technologies that could increase agricultural yealds, convert solar power more efficiently, automate daily operations, etc. vs. space craft that could travel the stars but not accomplish much else beside that for daily life? Such a ship would be a technological development, but not one that would be particularly advantageous to the average man on the street.

Now let's look at developing 0-gravity medicine for a moment. Let's suppose we discover a cure that can be produces only in space, but at such a cost that only the wealthiest of the wealthy could afford it. This would mean that from a practical standpoint, even if such a medicine is developed, it won't be of particular use to most people anyway, thus making it pretty academic over all. Would it not make more sence therefore, before even trying to develop such medicines, to:

1. Develop more efficient space technologies so as to bring the cost of space exploration down, or
2. Develop technologies that could allow us to create 0-gravity environments on earth at low cost.

If either of these could be developed, then any 0-gravity medicine that is developed would actually be affordable to the general population and therefore of a real rather than just imaginary practical use.

Developing such space medicines beore first figuring out how to then mass produce them at a reasonable price for them to be useful is a waste of money.

It's not that I'm opposed to tech, but that I think tax money going towards tech research ought to be targeted to that tech whcih will actually benefit society as a whole, and not just create a fun job for someone.

It's a matter of responsible financial management. Our resources are not infinite.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Machjo, you must be ardently against the ISS, the benefits it has produced are minimal, yet it costs billions. The billions are going to spent by govts all over the world, but the ISS will soon fall and burn. While a base on the moon could last centuries.

Better yet, just tow the ISS to the moon and use that as the first moon base.

Each shuttle launch costs about $450 million, double that and you could likely go to the moon and bring 50 tons of product.
Kennedy Space Center FAQ

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, you must be ardently against the ISS, the benefits it has produced are minimal, yet it costs billions. The billions are going to spent by govts all over the world, but the ISS will soon fall and burn. While a base on the moon could last centuries.

Better yet, just tow the ISS to the moon and use that as the first moon base.

Each shuttle launch costs about $450 million, double that and you could likely go to the moon and bring 50 tons of product.
Kennedy Space Center FAQ

I never said the ISS was necessarily more efficient than a moon base. Now, in some respects, you are right about a moon base. Now I would not necessarily have a problem with developing high tech products that could allow for the unmanned, or at least relatively unmanned, exploitation of lunar minerals. To make it practicable, we'd first need to develop tech that would allow such a project to be as automated as possible. For those tasks that cannot be automated, then make them as remote-controlled as possible from an earth base. And people would be sent there only when absolutely necessary to do those tasks that cannot be automated or remote-controlled.

Before doing this though, we'd have to:

1. Study its ecomic self-sustainability.
2. Ensure international agreements to prevent the moon from becoming a new cause of war between nations in future.
3. Attract private sector investment to ensure that tax-payer money is not used for it. If it truly has economic potential, the private sector would be more than willing to invest in it. Some kind of world body would also need to regulate it. For instance, though we'd try to avoid sending people to the moon at all, in the event that we have to, what would be the laws governing them if a crime is committed up there. What jurisdiction would it fall under, etc. All of this would need to be agreed to by all nations beforehand.

Seeing that the goal would be economic self-sustainability, the primary purpose of any kind of moon base would undoubtedly involve resource exploitation. After all, without that, what other money-making opportunity could it possibly have?

Are there resources there that are currently worth extracting that we could not extract from the earth at a much lower cost?

I'm not against the idea per se, but you'd still need to convince me with confincing facts. From what I can see, a moon base, though potentially less improfitable than the ISS, would not be very profitable itself, if at all.

It's not about blindly developing technologies just for the sake of developing useless technologies. Heck, I could develp the solar-powered flashlight if I wasnted to. The issue here is to develop technologies that would be of benefit to mankind. And from I can see, that would involve the development of more efficient means of resource exploitation here on earth, along with recycling technoloiges, more effiicent solar-conversion technologies, further social and urban infrastructural research to develop more efficient high-density cities, improve education for all, etc. Those would be far more beneficial investments in my opinion.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

1. It is not econ self-sustain, it is exploration which is risky and expesive, the cutting edge. Biz doesn't do this. Well paid execs and managers are not interested, neither are the shareholders who worry about liability. You sign up to be an astronaut and you sign away your life. NASA also means Need Another Seven Astronauts.

2. I agree. Keep the military out.

3. Too many tedious details. Are you employed by NASA right now?

The facts: It is going to cost billions with a questionable return. No sorry, no return possible at all. Billions are being spent right now on the rat hole called the ISS and who is up in arms about that? This is really an easy sell.

 

[Machjo]

1. It is not econ self-sustain, it is exploration which is risky and expesive, the cutting edge. Biz doesn't do this. Well paid execs and managers are not interested, neither are the shareholders who worry about liability. You sign up to be an astronaut and you sign away your life. NASA also means Need Another Seven Astronauts.

2. I agree. Keep the military out.

3. Too many tedious details. Are you employed by NASA right now?

The facts: It is going to cost billions with a questionable return. No sorry, no return possible at all. Billions are being spent right now on the rat hole called the ISS and who is up in arms about that? This is really an easy sell.

We should not be funding the ISS at all, at least not with public money. As for people being up in arms about it, well, I might not be up picketing NASA, but I do consider how my local MP votes. If he supports Canadian government funding of the ISS< it certainly does not help him to win my vote.

Now, as for 'cutting edge', blah blah blah, what's the use of being cutting edge in something that is of no use to us. Canada could produce the most efficient solar-powered flashlight in the world, but it would still be useless unless it works in the dark too. To have the most efficient space tech that does nothing but float around is useless. Now, if you're talkng about improved telecommunications technology which might also happen to invovle telecommunications satellites, now you're talking, as it would help make the internet and telephone communications etc. more efficient. But just to have cool gadgets to show off for nothing is a stupid waste of money no matter how 'cutting edge' it may be. 'Cutting edge' ought never to be an end in itself, but always, always, always a means to a practical end that could be of benefit to society as a whole. If not, then let the private sector deal with it. Why does the private sector not invest in it? Because it knows it's a waste of money.

 

[FiveParadox]

There are tremendous advantages to having a strong and enthusiastic space program. I have long been a proponent of increased funding and attention to space programs, and have advocated for the creation of a more independent and functional space program for Canada. The International Space Station has given us a lot of information on what it's like to live in space for prolonged periods of time, and this experience is going to be critical when planning longer-term missions. Thre are three key points, really, for my advocacy of a strengthened space program.

1. The End of the World. Hopefully, the end of the world as we know it is not soon upon us--but the fact is, science has shown that the world has been decimated before. The end of the dinosaurs demonstrates that no species, no matter how seemingly dominant, is immune to a massive global disaster. And whether this disaster might be by our own hand, or by Mother Nature, there is always the chance that something of that magnitude could happen again. If this is indeed the case, then pre-established colonies in diverse places on the moon, Mars and perhaps one day elsewhere, would be the only way to definitively assure the continuation of our species.
2. Capacity for International Unity. Space programs, as they explore what nobody actually knows for sure, are one of the few areas that the diverse international community can actually unite on and work together to advance. Canada and the United States of America work closely together in this regard, and this international partnership should be expanded between as many nations as possible. We should pool technology and resources, and personnel, and this sharing of knowledge will undoubtedy, as it progresses, improve international relationships.
3. Expansion of Greener Technology. If the international community wants to make space travel efficient and cost-effective, then we're going to have to, by necessity, come up with greener fuel sources and more efficient engine types. The drive to make this happen will force technology to advance quickly--and the discoveries that we make on the way could be hugely advantageous to humanity as a whole. We should be promoting wholeheartedly the rapid development of newer, more renewable technologies, and there is no greater application for this than long-distance space travel and the colonisation of the moon and Mars.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

We should not be funding the ISS at all, at least not with public money. As for people being up in arms about it, well, I might not be up picketing NASA, but I do consider how my local MP votes. If he supports Canadian government funding of the ISS< it certainly does not help him to win my vote.

Now, as for 'cutting edge', blah blah blah, what's the use of being cutting edge in something that is of no use to us. Canada could produce the most efficient solar-powered flashlight in the world, but it would still be useless unless it works in the dark too. To have the most efficient space tech that does nothing but float around is useless. Now, if you're talkng about improved telecommunications technology which might also happen to invovle telecommunications satellites, now you're talking, as it would help make the internet and telephone communications etc. more efficient. But just to have cool gadgets to show off for nothing is a stupid waste of money no matter how 'cutting edge' it may be. 'Cutting edge' ought never to be an end in itself, but always, always, always a means to a practical end that could be of benefit to society as a whole. If not, then let the private sector deal with it. Why does the private sector not invest in it? Because it knows it's a waste of money.

The ISS already gets boatloads of public money, can't stop that.

Space tech makes new tech, like cordless power tools. Is that efficient? But no space program and they likely would not have happened. A gadget that has worldwide use

Going to new places gives us new ideas, which is what we need right now. The USA invents so much, why they would not want to break new ground and create new jobs is beyond me.

There are tremendous advantages to having a strong and enthusiastic space program. I have long been a proponent of increased funding and attention to space programs, and have advocated for the creation of a more independent and functional space program for Canada. The International Space Station has given us a lot of information on what it's like to live in space for prolonged periods of time, and this experience is going to be critical when planning longer-term missions. Thre are three key points, really, for my advocacy of a strengthened space program.

1. The End of the World. Hopefully, the end of the world as we know it is not soon upon us--but the fact is, science has shown that the world has been decimated before. The end of the dinosaurs demonstrates that no species, no matter how seemingly dominant, is immune to a massive global disaster. And whether this disaster might be by our own hand, or by Mother Nature, there is always the chance that something of that magnitude could happen again. If this is indeed the case, then pre-established colonies in diverse places on the moon, Mars and perhaps one day elsewhere, would be the only way to definitively assure the continuation of our species.
2. Capacity for International Unity. Space programs, as they explore what nobody actually knows for sure, are one of the few areas that the diverse international community can actually unite on and work together to advance. Canada and the United States of America work closely together in this regard, and this international partnership should be expanded between as many nations as possible. We should pool technology and resources, and personnel, and this sharing of knowledge will undoubtedy, as it progresses, improve international relationships.
3. Expansion of Greener Technology. If the international community wants to make space travel efficient and cost-effective, then we're going to have to, by necessity, come up with greener fuel sources and more efficient engine types. The drive to make this happen will force technology to advance quickly--and the discoveries that we make on the way could be hugely advantageous to humanity as a whole. We should be promoting wholeheartedly the rapid development of newer, more renewable technologies, and there is no greater application for this than long-distance space travel and the colonisation of the moon and Mars.

1. Scientists agree on this. An asteroid could whack us and end our pitiful lives.
2. Space is great world project and would go on forever.
3. New green tech, what enviro doesn't want this? Although the Russians are working on a nuclear rocket, but you gotta use the tech that works. There is never a perfect time to do anything, but the world is becoming boringly middle class and this is an opportunity to unite more people of the world in the most exciting project ever.