FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why are we not going into outer space?





chasbeen
Well there I was getting all excited about astronauts landing on the Moon in 1969 and there was Arthur C Clerk predicting that in 2001 we would be travelling far and wide in Space what happened? Why did we STOP making progress in 1969? Next year a new Mars Probe is going to land on Mars and dig a trench but this is unmanned space flight and after all this does not seem any futher forward than what the Vikings mission in the 1970's achieved. Again:Why are we not going into outer space? Cool
coolclay
A. It's dangerous
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere
C. Whats the point
The Conspirator
coolclay wrote:
A. It's dangerous

Sorry astronauts, thats the nature of the beast. For us to go foreword, some of ya may die.
Quote:
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere

Unfortunately very, very true.
Quote:
C. Whats the point

Doing it/going there.
chasbeen
Clay,

What if Chris Columbus said "Whats the point?" Crying or Very sad
EanofAthenasPrime
someuser wrote:
A. It's dangerous
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere
C. Whats the point


A. Its only dangerous because NASA is primitive. The first attempts at constructing aircraft were totally dangerous, now flight is one of the safest forms of transportation, statistically speaking.
B. It only costs that much because NASA is primitive.
C. Hmmm, global warming, rainforest destruction, extinction of species...is it possible that maybe Mars could stop this? Please do not ask me how Mars could stop this.
cornga56
I def agree that we should be exploring space a lot more. Realistically we should have pumped out some incredible technology by now to be able to traverse the dangerous parts of space. But for some reason we see little to no change in the way we conduct space travel. It's so primitive, yet we're on the cusp of being able to use...I guess it would be called strato-travel or something, meaning that in soon enough time we'll see aircraft flying to heights far higher than we've normally flown before and we'll be saving time and possibly less resources.
I've seen some videos of aircraft that take off and travel through the stratosphere and go ginormous distances in short amounts of time. Forgive me if i'm wrong about the stratosphere, I think everyone understands what I mean though.
Basically all I'm sayin is there's no reason why we can't be testing out harvesting methods on asteroids/meteors and even on planetary objects as well. One harvested asteroid would revolutionize the world economy with all the resources it would provide.

"A. It's dangerous"
Life is dangerous. Progress is dangerous. Though valid, I don't think this is really an actual reason why the space program is so primitive. And obviously no one really cares whether progress or space exploration is dangerous, if we adopted that attitude you wouldn't have been able to respond let alone read this topic because nothing would have ever been invented.
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere
What costs billions to trillions is the defense budget, THAT money can be better spent elsewhere. Obviously not all of though, still need defense, but let's face it it's gotten out of hand in recent years. To say that there's no point in trying to find resources and knowledge beyond the earth is like saying there's no point in going outside and driving to work to earn money to pay your rent so you survive.

C. Whats the point
Again, not really a reason why the space program is so primitive. And, I'm sorry, but that attitude really gets no one anywhere, besides the point that clearly not that many think that way and obviously not NASA or they wouldn't even exist. I think most people see the long term benefits of space travel, and some see those long term benefits as far outweighing the short run costs.
EanofAthenasPrime
Well said. Cool
chasbeen
cornga56 the Mars lander takes off in August 2007, It will arrive before July 2008, When it gets there it's going to dig a trench apparantly Sad
EanofAthenasPrime
chasbeen wrote:
cornga56 the Mars lander takes off in August 2007, It will arrive before July 2008, When it gets there it's going to dig a trench apparantly Sad


How deep will be the trench?
cornga56
chasbeen- really now? Well, at least it's something you know, I think once we get through the future energy crisis we'll find more resources and time to allocate towards space exploration, right? And as far as just diggin a trench, I have to ask what the goal of that is? Not mocking it or anything, just curious to know why they want to do that.

EanofAthenasPrime- Thanks mate :*) Much appreciated
polis
I think we should stop global warming, then erradicate poverty and hungry in the world.
YushuaMalik
I don't know. I see the acheivement of Man in his ability to go to other places than the Planet Earth. It's shows the brilliance of the human race. But...is it really that big of an Acheivement?

A lot of money goes to these space shuttles and rockets. We should stop concentrating on trying to explore space, and concentrate more on our own world.

Not to get off topic, but it's just a thought.
YushuaMalik
EanofAthenasPrime wrote:
someuser wrote:
A. It's dangerous
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere
C. Whats the point


A. Its only dangerous because NASA is primitive. The first attempts at constructing aircraft were totally dangerous, now flight is one of the safest forms of transportation, statistically speaking.
B. It only costs that much because NASA is primitive.
C. Hmmm, global warming, rainforest destruction, extinction of species...is it possible that maybe Mars could stop this? Please do not ask me how Mars could stop this.


You have any other ideas on how to get Shuttles and Rockets into Space WITHOUT spending that much money?

Also, how the hell could mars stop those problems? How could it. when it is not even a place able to live on? I guess it wouldn't have those problems....because humans wouldn't be able to live there long enough to make those problems arise.....

Please explain.
EanofAthenasPrime
all the would have to do is build some buildings duh.

and this would not even be a debate if the government didn't spend so much on the damned defense budget.
Tartaglia
Well, the huge load of money it costs, does it really matter? The government spends huge loads of tax money on unneeded things anyway.
Hell, if someone were to go bankrupt, they could just comit a crime, then they would go to a place that provides them with all they need and be comfortable.
Part of a solution, stop sending so much money to the prisons. THey say they are getting overcrowded, well no wonder, they make them look like a place better than home. Make friends get a comfy bed, get fed, have a gym you can go to, a free councilor.
Prisons should not be a 'reward' for people who did something wrong.
Well, in general, make prisons use less money, and more could go to the space travel.
As for the dangerous part, so what? Everyone is going to die someday anyway. Might as well die trying to find ways to help those in the future that will have to deal with the environment biting us back in the arses from us destroying it.
SonLight
The primary purpose of going into space is to do Science, not to demonstrate our macho abilities. Most of what we learn by going is what we consider "pure science", which means we don't have a clue whether it will produce an economic benefit, and probably don't care if the science bug has really bit us. Nevertheless, history has shown that pure scientific research usually produces totally unexpected economic rewards.

As to why we're not going into space, my claim is that we are in a pretty substantial way. If you followed the Mars rover missions, you can see that they are doing much of what people would do if present to do the same research. We have learned an enormous amount about nearly all parts of the Solar system since we re-focused our efforts on unmanned missions. The Hubble space telescope and it's successor are probably worth more in terms of information than a manned mission to mars would be.

The US does have a long-term plan to get men back into space over the next twenty years or so. It looks probable that the plan, if fully implemented, will reduce our total capacity to do research in space. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea that the plan is there, as an incentive to think through the trade-offs. Clearly there would be much public interest in any manned missions.
EanofAthenasPrime
Tartaligia, just for the records, have you been homeschooled your entire life? Or have you lived in a bubble...
greatfire
it would be pretty good if they kept up the space program they way they had it when we first landed on the moon. I suppose the cons out-ways the pros.
Tumbleweed
Have we stopped making progress ?..... Ok it does seems that since the moon landings nothing as exciting has happened and thats because to average Joe Public it has'nt , but I am sure they have made 38 years worth of technical advances ( someone more informed maybe could tell us if anything really important has been discovered/developed )
Once space exploration becomes profitable through say , space or lunar tourism /mineral deposits / some extravagant form of zero G medical procedure / gravitational power station (or casino) with 1000's of employees needing food and water, it will take off like a rocket
polis
I have a much more simple answer for this:

IT IS NOT PRIORITY
jharsika
polis wrote:
I think we should stop global warming, then erradicate poverty and hungry in the world.

I wholeheartedly agree. Although it would be nice to live in a sci-fi novel, I think we have to solve our own problems before we start (possibly) causing more. Think about the Vulcans....they had good reasons to not let us discover deep space travel for hundreds of years...(hehehe)
jharsika
SonLight wrote:
The primary purpose of going into space is to do Science, not to demonstrate our macho abilities. Most of what we learn by going is what we consider "pure science", which means we don't have a clue whether it will produce an economic benefit, and probably don't care if the science bug has really bit us. Nevertheless, history has shown that pure scientific research usually produces totally unexpected economic rewards.


That's questionable. Why do we want to go into space? I think we need to re-evaluate what the true objective is. Someone made the good point that "technology is advancing faster than our ethical values/morals/rules". I think there are several different reasons why people want to go into space anyway
1 - Find a new earth
2 - In the name of science
3- Some sort of desire to do something fantastical
4 - other.....

I think with the whole Middle East thing, space has taken a bit of a back burner, but there is still stuff going on. Things being planned etc.

I agree that if spending was shifted, we could advance the space program(s).
eznet
First, I would have to say that we have definitely made progress, albeit seemingly limited, since 1969. Hubble as well as other satellites have contributed to mankind's knowledge. Granted, most of our accomplishments have come relatively close to home and admittedly there is a good deal that we could have been doing all this time that we have not been (like observing the sun a bit more and doing a bit more deep probing).

Who knows completely why our space program is what it is but there is popular theory that holds that the reason for our lagging in exploration and more valuable space research roots in the same BS cause that holds up much of our fine nation's progress; the government.

NASA, being a government agency, deals through many (LUCRATIVE) government contracts with big (MILITARY DEFENSE) companies. Instead of focusing on the best science and technology the world has to offer to build the next-gen space fronteer, NASA focuses on funneling the money to the government favored contracts - many of which are held by the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky, Etc., Etc., Etc. We don't look at investing in new, less expensive technology but instead invest in technologies that were outdated years ago...for their 'reliability'.

In short, it is our bloated bureaucratic, pocket-lining capitol-exploit system that is holding back the space program... in part... the problem is multi-faceted and the government alone cannot solely be blamed... oh wait... yea... it kind of can... they have the money... they have the power...

You may find this Wired article on part of the privatized space race. ... Cool Stuff....
qsmith
To answer the question c: What's the point?

The point of going to the space and the moon, was actually a propaganda race between the Russians and the Americans. Now that it has been done, and the Russians are fighting to just keep the country going and not fall apart, the only motive left for going back is - money!(Columbus' motive). So as soon as somebody finds a way of making profit out of it, we'll go into space and test the frontiers again.

PS - who was the captain of the SECOND mission to the moon?
Revvion
Its just a waist of money in the eyes of many people, there are no short term advantages in manned space flights to mars so people see it as a waste of time aswell.
jharsika
I remember finding a random Wired article or some other site that said they planned a mining expedition and settlement for 2018. Has anyone else heard of that?
ktak1
I believe a reason why man has not ventured further out into space is technology limited.

With our basic technology right now, it takes YEARS, just to get to Mars. And that's like the next planet over. I think a probe launched like 20 years ago has reached one of the outer planets of our solar system.

Now imagine traveling at that rate. For one person to survive that long a period of time, just to reach Neptune or Uranus is insane. Can you imagine the food supply needed to sustain a person that long?

Until man discovers breakthrough technology that allows us to travel faster, not just the speed of light, but even faster still (maximum warp Scotty!) man will never be able to travel fast enough to reach a destination that would probably be worth reaching.

And again, it is a matter of priority. Is it worth the money for any one government in the world to invest billions or trillions of dollars to break the light speed barrier? Probably not for that government. Maybe in the grander scheme of things, it would be a definite positive step forward for mankind, but not at any one person or country's expense.
Afaceinthematrix
coolclay wrote:
A. It's dangerous
B. It costs billions to trillions to send people into space, that can be better spent elsewhere
C. Whats the point


C. What's the point? Space is important mostly because of satellites. If it wasn't for satellites, then there would not be GPS, cell phones, satellite television, etc...
Sharpe
For really new innovations we need more bold privateers or a new war/Cold war.

The moonrace was basically two countries trying to show off. ;)
Since that stopped, budgetcuts followed on both sides and thus progress slowed down.

Don't forget it is as much a macho race as anything else. No competition makes one slow.
HoboPelican
My new co-worker has an answer as to why we stopped. Apparently, when we landed on the moon, we met aliens who told us not to leave Earth anymore. Shocked

I suppose I should be happy that he at least believes we really went to the moon at all. Wink


I remember standing out on the street with all my neighbors back in the early 60s looking up at the sky, watching an early satellite make its pass overhead (Echo, I think it was). In less than 10 years, we were on the moon! And this happened while we were spending massive bucks fighting a war in Viet Nam. There was no doubt in my mind that that sort of progress was going to continue and that we would have colonies on the moon and Mars in my lifetime. It was inconceivable that it wouldn't happen. The reality was pretty disappointing.

I don't know what is the right or wrong thing morally, ecologically, or financially. I just feel that one of the admirable traits of humankind is (was?) it's drive to explore new lands and it saddens me to think that the moon landings when I was a kid will be the last new territory we will explore in my lifetime.
Tumbleweed
HoboPelican wrote:

I don't know what is the right or wrong thing morally, ecologically, or financially. I just feel that one of the admirable traits of humankind is (was?) it's drive to explore new lands and it saddens me to think that the moon landings when I was a kid will be the last new territory we will explore in my lifetime.


MARINER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 ,7, 8, 9,10

PIONEER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 ,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

RANGER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9

LUNA ORBITER 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

SURVEYOR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

VIKING 1, 2

VOYAGER 1, 2

LUNA 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17,24

ZOND 2, 3, 5

VENERA 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 15

VEGA 1, 2

MARS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

PHOBOS 1, 2

GIOTTO

SAKIGAKE

HITEN

These are just some of the probes mankind has sent into space in the name of exploration, you could argue mankind has never stopped exploring and has never lost its drive, we do seem however to be stuck in a low gear when it comes to "one giant leap for mankind" moments, moments when the whole of mankind can say one of us is actually there , I find that kind of sad
HoboPelican
Tumbleweed wrote:
...

These are just some of the probes mankind has sent into space in the name of exploration, you could argue mankind has never stopped exploring and has never lost its drive, ...


Yeah, we are still tossing up platforms to "explore" the universe, but, for me, that sounds more like research than exploring. Don't get me wrong, most of my life I've worked in various research labs and I loved it. Important, fascinating stuff. But to me there is a huge difference in sending a robotic cart to Mars and sending a man there. Maybe it's just a romantic notion, but to me "exploring" means doing it "in person".
Moonspider
HoboPelican wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
...

These are just some of the probes mankind has sent into space in the name of exploration, you could argue mankind has never stopped exploring and has never lost its drive, ...


Yeah, we are still tossing up platforms to "explore" the universe, but, for me, that sounds more like research than exploring. Don't get me wrong, most of my life I've worked in various research labs and I loved it. Important, fascinating stuff. But to me there is a huge difference in sending a robotic cart to Mars and sending a man there. Maybe it's just a romantic notion, but to me "exploring" means doing it "in person".


I agree wholeheartedly. "Exploring" space by looking at pictures and data from probes, while useful, is equivalent to saying, "I explored Paris, France" by pouring over images from Google Earth.

Respectfully,
M
Tumbleweed
Moonspider wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
...

These are just some of the probes mankind has sent into space in the name of exploration, you could argue mankind has never stopped exploring and has never lost its drive, ...


Yeah, we are still tossing up platforms to "explore" the universe, but, for me, that sounds more like research than exploring. Don't get me wrong, most of my life I've worked in various research labs and I loved it. Important, fascinating stuff. But to me there is a huge difference in sending a robotic cart to Mars and sending a man there. Maybe it's just a romantic notion, but to me "exploring" means doing it "in person".


I agree wholeheartedly. "Exploring" space by looking at pictures and data from probes, while useful, is equivalent to saying, "I explored Paris, France" by pouring over images from Google Earth.

Respectfully,
M


Yes sending probes into space is just like looking at pictures of Paris France on google earth...... Rolling Eyes .... just nobody has ever ever ever been there before nobody has seen it and before didnt even know if it really existed at all ...... the probes are possibly the most important part of mans journey into the unknown , I see them as an extension of the people that built them ,for me there as much a idea or desire as they are nuts and bolts
Tumbleweed
instantpaypalcash.com wrote:
HI tumbleweed,

thats a pretty impressive list of launches you put together a few posts back.

I saw a map of all the satellites in LEO and it looked like a major clusterf---.

Now they are saying there is so much junk in space that avoiding collisions between satellites and spacejunk is going to be near impossible.


Hi instantpaypalcash.com Shocked

I would have to agree
Bannik
not only do we loves sending probes in space we also love crashing them on a planet destroying it.....wohoooo we are AWSOME!!! Rolling Eyes
dac_nip
simply because we are still in Civilization I. read on STRING THEORY. we need more energy to explore the outer space. needing energy greater than the planetary energy. Currently we are at the planetary energy. we can control processes in a planet. beyond that, it is still out of our reach.
chasbeen
If we are sending automatic/ unmanned probes to Mars why can't we send Men Question If you say the journey takes too long then why was Nasa avidly discussing this DURING Apollo landings. Question If you say it'd because the "cold war is over", what about the near certain existance of water on Mars and the original objective of a self-sufficient space station on Mars. Question
There are too many holes in the "cold war is over" and the "too far away" argument.

This "zero progress in exploring techniques" in nearly 40 years is a much bigger mystery to me. I was alive and remember Niel Armstrong stepping on to the moon but you guys were not around to experience this fantastic feeling. Sending probes into Space and Shuttles into low earth orbit is a COMPLETE and UTTER anti-climax. Crying or Very sad
The Conspirator
Mars is millions of miles away, it would take a long time to get there, the moon is half a million miles away, it takes far less time, planning and resources to get people to the moon. Too get to mars and back you would need a large supply of fuel, food water and air, too get to the moon you only need a small fraction of what you would need to get to mars. And to get to the moon it would cost many billions of dollars, more than NASA currently is using to send the Shuttle into space and probes to the other planets in the solar system and so on.
chasbeen
I think you know that the Moon is "only" a quarter of a million and that , at its closest "pass" A Mars trip would be 6-8 months. Did you get my point that Nasa were talking about Manned flights to Mars during the Apollo landings Question Also the Viking landers in the mid 70's were the pre-cursors to this Question
And don't you think it's odd that now (More than ever before) Mars is looking a very interesting destination but there is no planned manned flight:?:
chasbeen
Go to this link to have a play..

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/mars_orbit.html&cdp=/windows3.html&edu=elem&frp=/windows3.html
The Conspirator
Getting to the moon is far easer than getting to mars. It took days to get to the moon, it would take months to get to mars and through those months the astronauts would need food water and air not only going there but living there for over a year (theres only a small window of opportunity to go between the earth and mars and the mars and earth (when the two are closest)) and on the return trip plus they would need allot more fuel to get up enough speed to get to mars and back to earth.
Its a very big task, allot bigger than going to the moon.
chasbeen
Yes but during the Apollo Mission they were Talking about going they knew the Logistics then Crying or Very sad
chasbeen
chasbeen wrote:
Yes but during the Apollo Mission they were Talking about going (to MARS) they knew the Logistics then Crying or Very sad
Bikerman
chasbeen wrote:
chasbeen wrote:
Yes but during the Apollo Mission they were Talking about going (to MARS) they knew the Logistics then Crying or Very sad

I have doubts about how well they understood the logistics of the Moon mission then, let alone a Mars mission.
What they had was a Presidential/political imperative, significant funding, a brilliant German rocket scientist, and a determination to succeed - a potent combination which I don't think exists to anything like the same extent today (yet). I live in hope though....t.
The Conspirator
chasbeen wrote:
Yes but during the Apollo Mission they were Talking about going they knew the Logistics then Crying or Very sad

Did they? Talking about doing something and actually doing it are two different things.
Do you think JFK knew the logistics of going to the moon when he made his famous speech?
KronikSindrome
we're not going into space anymore because:

Captain Kirk and the Interprise have already done that to death.

duh.

Wink Laughing






i lllluuuuvvv me some kirk
chasbeen
Yes, i'm not sure that the Enterprize was really a good design for a spaceship. (I hope you don't think this is to patronizing) Razz
pertra
oh god that cool he quoted Adam Savage i love there show.

Laughing "i reject you reality and substatute my own" Laughing ]



MYTHBUSTERS rules always get youre fix of MYTHBUSTERS

later yall and good luck pertra.
Jinx
This is news from NASA itself:

Quote:
NASA has been engaged since last year in what the agency calls a road-mapping effort to flesh out the details of a Mars master plan that would lead to an expeditionary crew landing on that remote world.


The complete article is at http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050520_mars_masterplan.html

As for political leadership, as much as I love to hate Bush, he does have one thing in his favor:
Quote:
President Bush's Jan. 14 (2004) speech painted broad brushstrokes of his plan to put humans back on the Moon and send them to Mars. He will depend on NASA and a new commission to sketch in the details.



Look here for more details about the plan and timeframe: http://www.space.com/news/bush_plan_faq_040115.html

So yes, though things seem to be moving slower than they did in the 60's, we are still making progress, and we are aiming for Mars.
heartbeat
I think we shouldnt spend money on space research, and spend it fighting hunger and disease. One can go to space If one spends time gettinng to know oneself deeply
LumberJack
I think it is really expensive, and the cold war played a large role in getting up to space as fast as possible. The US can't afford it right now while occupying the middle east.

Maybe in the future, when technology moves ahead a bit more, or we find ourselves needing too look for stuff up there Smile
GSIS
As others have pointed out limitations in technology, the human lifespan, and the need to eat and drink, make serious attempts at manned travel to other planets - even those within our own solar system - impractical almost to the point of impossibility. Robots and other unmanned craft are much more likely to succeed in their missions and it is this - rather than the desire to send a human - that is the deciding factor. Mission failure is not acceptable given the huge budgets so the most likely route to success is chosen.

One possibility would be to use some form of hibernation or suspended animation. I guarantee someone, somewhere, is working on this but it just isn't practical right now. It isn't likely to be practical for some time.

Eventually, though, the technology, desire, and resources will exist and we will travel to other planets within the solar system.

At currently achievable velocities we would need huge craft with room to grow food. It's taken years, so far, just to build the ISS - and that would be nowhere near big enough. Once something big enough becomes possible we also have to solve the problems of getting it up to speed (overcoming massive inertia) and slowing it down at the other end (overcoming massive momentum) - easy enough with a tiny craft but, given the masses involved, for a big one possibly beyond the means of our current technology.

For interstellar travel we'll also need craft big enough to allow us to breed, raise and educate children. We can probably take it for granted that a return to Earth will not be likely for the first few craft to leave - this would raise huge issues amongst a population the majority of who appear to think that no-one has a right to make a dangerous decision for themselves let alone their unborn children. Personally, though, if I thought I was in with a chance I'd be signed up in a heartbeat.

My expectation is that the first voyages will be done with fleets rather than single craft - this will help to build in redundancy so that the mission is more likely to continue if some of the craft fail. The cost of building just one such vessel for interstellar travel would be prohibitive. The cost of building many even more so.

With man's current reputation as Destroyer of His Own World, I think it's better that we fix problems here (if we can) before launching our new career as Destroyer of Worlds.
Bikerman
LumberJack wrote:
I think it is really expensive, and the cold war played a large role in getting up to space as fast as possible. The US can't afford it right now while occupying the middle east.

Maybe in the future, when technology moves ahead a bit more, or we find ourselves needing too look for stuff up there Smile


LOL...it's astonishing how people buy into myths like this (normally propogated by Governments when they want to raise taxes, cut benefits or otherwise transfer money from the poorest to the richest.
People genuinely believe the US is somehow not doing so well at the moment and remember the golden 60s (or 50s or 80s - depends when you were having your 'golden era').

The truth is a little different....for a quick illustration, here is the GNP/GDP/NI for the US over the last century

chasbeen
I used to be a firm believer in the myths as you put it Bikerman. I do hear a lot from the Internet about what happens with the average joes money though.

I mean isn't nearly all the money we payout for fuel we put in our cars and electricity we use in our properties going to the government? I mean theres the obvious taxes on what we buy and the tax we pay for simply owning a house.

I feel a prisoner in my own house and a bit of a wage slave so wheres the money going? I still would not quibble if I saw that Man was making significant Technology strides. However instead of this there does not seem to be any significant strides in
(1)Finding a cure for serious illness
(2)World sponsored exploration of Outer Space
to name but 2..
Bikerman
chasbeen wrote:
I used to be a firm believer in the myths as you put it Bikerman. I do hear a lot from the Internet about what happens with the average joes money though.

I mean isn't nearly all the money we payout for fuel we put in our cars and electricity we use in our properties going to the government? I mean theres the obvious taxes on what we buy and the tax we pay for simply owning a house.

I feel a prisoner in my own house and a bit of a wage slave so wheres the money going? I still would not quibble if I saw that Man was making significant Technology strides. However instead of this there does not seem to be any significant strides in
(1)Finding a cure for serious illness
(2)World sponsored exploration of Outer Space
to name but 2..


The money goes where it has always gone. Governments are elected to make sure that it does just that, It essentially flows from the poor to the rich by means of several commercial and governmental channels.
You don't think that folk like Newt Gingrich are genuine when they talk about small government do you? Federal government funding goes to where the power elite want it to - that is, of course, the tax dollars of the average Joe. Gingrich's district - Cobb Country - is no.1 on the Federal budget receipts (sorry - just checked - it's dropped to 3 now) in the whole US. The biggest employer in Cobb County is Lockheed - a private corporation. They are subsidised to an unbelievable level by your tax dollars - and Gingrich is the top of the tree. He will scream at big government and decry the waste of tax funds because that is part of the game, but the real-politik is the same as it always has been. It is, of course, extremely obvious to anyone who seriously looks at the matter - that is why the media are so important - you need a very well organised propoganda system to keep the system running - the public relations industry spends much of its energies on this and has evolved into the primary 'defender' of the system.

If this money were directed at the poor, of course, it would be called Welfare and politicians would tut tut about it. In fact the huge majority goes to privately owned companies, like Lockheed, for the production of high-tech and military goods. The military is essentially the largest diverter of funds, but by no means the only one. Examine your whole economy and you will see it is overwhelmingly devoted to converting public funds (tax dollars and other monies from the average citizen) into privately owned capital - without risk, of course for the capitalists. Technology is generally developed by the military using public funding and then, when it works reliably it is passed on to private capitalist concerns.

The cold war, of course, is over so a new totem has been found to justify the game being played. Terrorism is useful and as long as it can be spun out (the War on terrorism is great here, of course, because, by definition, War on a concept, as opposed to an actual opponent, can never be won and offers lots of scope of the future).

States routinely grant huge sums of money to the corporations (not welfare, of course, this is investment or development or setup or relocation grants). The benefit is never seen by the public, but that is understood and hardly ever questioned. Instead the capital funnels into privately owned corporations directly, or indirectly through public compant share dealings, mergers, business 'slight of hand' and the good offices of the investment and market brokerages.
These coroporations are, technically, tyrannies, and the net result is to transfer public monies into privately owned tyrannies constantly and remorselessly. This, in turn, concentrates the wealth and power to a smaller and smaller number of elite. The trick is in letting enough money trickle back to the huge majority to keep them quiet and maintaining a facade of normality about the whole thing so that it is not only seen as normal, it is seen as the only proper way for things to be done.
It's quite comical if you don't let yourself get angry Smile
chasbeen
bkmn
Quote:
facade

I like the word . It's funny how death and taxes is all you can gaurantee.
The funny thing is that even the people at the top have not got a perfect life. They have their own fears and although they get all the money they live in fear where as the average Joe just worries if he will get 4 peanuts in his pay packet instead of 3.
Lets here it then for these Elite members of the world you know no-one ever has anything to say in their favour.

Anyway back to the Space question. It still intrigues me. Is money drying up in this area because of other projects. What are these projects?
Related topics
What will u do first if u get a new game ?
science vs. religion
That's enough google...
Solar Power Energy
Was there any point to sending men to the moon?
Pluto is no longer a planet
Is virgin Mary deserve to be worshipped?
Look into the past - physics say it's possible
How do you know i'm not from outer space?
Will Computers Take Over Earth?
Did Man Stepped On Moon!!!
Genesis in the spotlight..1
End of plastic bags!
Would you like to visit space? Where would you go?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.