Do you support public space exploration?

[Potus]

What do you all think?

Massive commitment is meant to be like the original space program, really committed to doing something huge.

[President Johnson]

Yes, but we should also focus on spending. Balanced budgets are very important.

[P123]

Option one. And try to colonize Mars as soon as possible.

[Murica!]

Of course, and nationalize all companies that are contracted for space exploration currently.

Yes, but we should also focus on spending. Balanced budgets are very important.

Facking lol

[Thunderbird is the word]

Yes, a massive commitment. Ideally we'd spend more on exploring the cosmos then we do on the military.

[politicallefty]

Yes, absolutely. It is a huge priority for me. We should move quickly to have a permanent settlement on the moon, Mars, and at least begin to explore Jupter's moons (particularly Europa and its possible subsurface ocean).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If by public, you mean government, and if by space exploration, you mean manned space missions, then no.  As far as actual useful science, then for the foreseeable future we get more bang from the buck from unmanned missions.  While it would be nice to put a self-sustaining colony on Mars, I don't see the political will existing to do that.  (Especially not in the most cost effective way as it would require accepting a Mars with a radically different social structure.)

[politicallefty]

If by public, you mean government, and if by space exploration, you mean manned space missions, then no.  As far as actual useful science, then for the foreseeable future we get more bang from the buck from unmanned missions.  While it would be nice to put a self-sustaining colony on Mars, I don't see the political will existing to do that.  (Especially not in the most cost effective way as it would require accepting a Mars with a radically different social structure.)

I don't agree with your pessimism when it comes to space exploration, but I understand your concerns. Personally, I think we should be using both manned and unmanned missions. I don't think political will should inhibit exploration. It was President Kennedy in 1961 that proposed we set foot on the moon by the end of the decade. We did so in July 1969. If President Obama or our next President proposed a manned mission to Mars within 10 years, I have no doubt whatsoever that we could do it. (To be honest, I don't think we should send people for the sake of doing so. If and when we do it, we should be establishing a permanent settlement.) Ideally, though, I think it'd be best that a permanent Mars settlement be a multinational effort among the great powers (i.e. US, UK, France, Russia, China, etc).

[dead0man]

I think there should be more money thrown at space, I don't really care if it's the govt or rich guys.  It doesn't matter, we won't be "serious" about it until we figure out how to make money at it or we have to be "serious" about it.

[muon2]

If by public, you mean government, and if by space exploration, you mean manned space missions, then no.  As far as actual useful science, then for the foreseeable future we get more bang from the buck from unmanned missions.  While it would be nice to put a self-sustaining colony on Mars, I don't see the political will existing to do that.  (Especially not in the most cost effective way as it would require accepting a Mars with a radically different social structure.)

I don't agree with your pessimism when it comes to space exploration, but I understand your concerns. Personally, I think we should be using both manned and unmanned missions. I don't think political will should inhibit exploration. It was President Kennedy in 1961 that proposed we set foot on the moon by the end of the decade. We did so in July 1969. If President Obama or our next President proposed a manned mission to Mars within 10 years, I have no doubt whatsoever that we could do it. (To be honest, I don't think we should send people for the sake of doing so. If and when we do it, we should be establishing a permanent settlement.) Ideally, though, I think it'd be best that a permanent Mars settlement be a multinational effort among the great powers (i.e. US, UK, France, Russia, China, etc).

Kennedy made his pledge to put a man on the moon in an entirely military context. The Cold War was at its height: in 1957 the USSR scared the USA stiff when Sputnik beeped overhead every 90 minutes and in 1960 the USSR shot down our high altitude U2 spy plane and paraded the pilot and aircraft to show that the US was systematically invading the airspace of the USSR for espionage. Like the public support for a military response to 9/11, the public supported the space race as part of an attempt to recover military dominance atop the atmosphere.

Without a similarly compelling reason, I don't see how any president gets the public behind an all-out manned mission. I think a modest increase is the best that can be sold to the public.

[DavidB.]

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

One can argue that a lot of the more important technological changes in recent years have stemmed from the challenges of the Space Race.

[beaver2.0]

We should land people on the Moon and Mars and begin colonies.

[Kingpoleon]

I think there should be more money thrown at space, I don't really care if it's the govt or rich guys.  It doesn't matter, we won't be "serious" about it until we figure out how to make money at it or we have to be "serious" about it.

[Enduro]

I support it after a constitutional amendment is passed allowing the government to explore space.

[Leinad]

I support privately-ran space exploration. Maybe some government involvement, given the benefits of space travel (those that CrabCake mentioned, plus the ability to search for a new place to live if we break or overpopulate this one) but I'd rather we let the taxpayers keep that money, or at least put it on more important things as DavidB pointed out.

[Virginiá]

I'm not sure I agree with manned missions outside of LEO, because it doesn't seem very useful at the moment. However, I think we should significantly increase NASA's funding for R&D and other space-related investments.

Earth is set to undergo significant resource shortages for certain types of elements in the coming decades, and we need to prepare for this. Mining asteroids in space (particularly the asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter). We will need much more advanced technology, especially in energy and robotics, to take advantage of these truly enormous amounts of resources.

That is where things are headed no matter what we do, so we should begin investing now so we can be prepared. So many discoveries will likely be made while developing the technology to do this and it will inevitably benefit mankind in ways that are hard to imagine, just like previous large R&D projects have.

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

I see what you're saying, and it's perfectly understandable, but NASA's budget is already far smaller than it used to be, save for the small bump it got recently, iirc.

However, as I was rambling on about above, we will need to begin taking advantage of the resources in space no matter what we do on Earth and it's best we focus more resources on speeding up the exploitation of those space-based resources. IMO that should be a primary objective for NASA & private industry, rather than symbolic manned missions.

[Mr. Reactionary]

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

Yeah, if we're going to spend more money than we have on sh**t, it might as well be to help people now with real problems. Most people on Earth won't even fly on an airplane in their life.

[Enduro]

I support privately-ran space exploration. Maybe some government involvement, given the benefits of space travel (those that CrabCake mentioned, plus the ability to search for a new place to live if we break or overpopulate this one) but I'd rather we let the taxpayers keep that money, or at least put it on more important things as DavidB pointed out.

I support this also.

[Ebowed]

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

Voice of reason here.

Space exploration is fine and all, but it's pretty darn low on a sensible list of priorities.  I guess it would be good to have a plan B for when the planet catches on fire.  Is that why we're all so eager?

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Yes, a massive commitment. The ultimate survival of humanity is not an issue that we can afford to shrug off and kick down the road.

[P123]

Yes, a massive commitment. The ultimate survival of humanity is not an issue that we can afford to shrug off and kick down the road.

[MK]

No, and as long as there are still people who do not have healthcare, as long as there are people who cannot afford an education, the US should cut back on its expenses in space and invest in more important areas that, you know, actually affect people's lives.

I agree. Id take it a step further get rid of Nasa and allow it to be contracted out.   Its been 40 years since they did anything noteworthy.   Use the funds for something else like you know.. roads and Bridges or maybe highspeed rails.   

[Virginiá]

I agree. Id take it a step further get rid of Nasa and allow it to be contracted out.   Its been 40 years since they did anything noteworthy.   Use the funds for something else like you know.. roads and Bridges or maybe highspeed rails.   

What do you mean? Maybe they haven't been walking on the moon lately, but NASA contributes a lot towards astronomy / physics and other sciences. Maybe it's because a lot of that stuff is very dense and hard to understand that people freely blow off the need for NASA, but NASA's scientific contributions are noteworthy at least to scientists who help advance society's knowledge of our universe.

Boy, I guess society really takes for granted science and technology these days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, it's a bit hard for me to support spending a lot of money for that while millions of people are going hungry. Then again, most public money in the US is spent on things far more insultingly futile.