Ofaebtas
Skilled Investigator
The topic of why NASA and/or simply we (as humans) haven't put a man on the moon for a long time or been more adamant about getting people on Mars comes up time to time.
Some say it's the lack of resources or just the lack of interest since the space war was already fought (and won). Others may go as far as to say of course there are resources and since we don't see a man on Mars, there must be a "black space program" where all the money is going.
I don't know or think I could know who's right or wrong, but a couple of days ago I came across a view that I had never thought about before. (Nor had I never heard this view before, although it may be a common one amongst "real scientists" (for the lack of a much better term). )
That view being something like: They better not waste money and other resources on getting people to the moon or Mars at this point in time, but take those resources and continue doing real scientific exploration and continue developing more kick ass probes, satellites, telescopes, and other data collection and analysation systems. The idea being that it would be "fun" and "cool" to see a person like you and me actually stand on another planet, but the scientific benefits and knowledge gained from an experiment like that would be minuscule compared to the information these more advanced telescopes, probes and satellites could bring us. (And from way farther away than the immediate neighbourhood).
Seems like a valid view.
This all with the disclaimer that I personally don't even know how much money goes into something like NASA every year and how much things like Hubble or some of the new probes/satellites that have been sent further and further actually cost.
Some say it's the lack of resources or just the lack of interest since the space war was already fought (and won). Others may go as far as to say of course there are resources and since we don't see a man on Mars, there must be a "black space program" where all the money is going.
I don't know or think I could know who's right or wrong, but a couple of days ago I came across a view that I had never thought about before. (Nor had I never heard this view before, although it may be a common one amongst "real scientists" (for the lack of a much better term). )
That view being something like: They better not waste money and other resources on getting people to the moon or Mars at this point in time, but take those resources and continue doing real scientific exploration and continue developing more kick ass probes, satellites, telescopes, and other data collection and analysation systems. The idea being that it would be "fun" and "cool" to see a person like you and me actually stand on another planet, but the scientific benefits and knowledge gained from an experiment like that would be minuscule compared to the information these more advanced telescopes, probes and satellites could bring us. (And from way farther away than the immediate neighbourhood).
Seems like a valid view.
This all with the disclaimer that I personally don't even know how much money goes into something like NASA every year and how much things like Hubble or some of the new probes/satellites that have been sent further and further actually cost.