Mars rover: Is all this really necessary?
kir
2012/08/07 16:17:20
|
|
|||||
|
38 votes
|
|
70% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
17% | |||
Really CNN? Is all this really necessary? Is it necessary to learn about how life forms, whether or not we're alone in the universe, what kind of possibly economically important minerals exist on Mars, and many other questions? $2.6B seems like a huge price tag doesn't it? Indeed it is too high because the government always spends poorly, however we are spending nearly $800B a year on our military budget; this means that we could build a new mars rover every year using 0.325% of our military budget.
http://politicoid.blogspot.com/2012/05/alternative-uses-for-o...
People seem to be thinking that my view matches that of CNN's, it does not. I think CNN is absurd for their point of view that the money is wasted.
http://politicoid.blogspot.com/2012/05/alternative-uses-for-o...
People seem to be thinking that my view matches that of CNN's, it does not. I think CNN is absurd for their point of view that the money is wasted.
Top Opinion
-
Michelle 2012/08/07 18:33:40Yes; space exploration is worth it.
+3Regardless of who is doing it, it should be done. Space exploration causes technological advances that would never be seen otherwise. With it, we're learning more about the universe around us which effects us back here on Earth. And nobody can deny the cultural effects it has had on us-- it unites us as one species in a big universe. When you look at the Earth from space, countries aren't colour-coded and borders impossible to see. Space is the final frontier, and if we stop travelling to it, we're surrendering it. The future is important; we have to remember to aim to it. Imagine what would happen if nobody want to the New World after it was discovered?
http://www.mikejwilson.com/ma...
The soil results from a climate of warm (hot) temperatures and high rainfall, so there has been intense weathering of the rocks over the years. High rainfall has leached out most of the bases that were present.
Materials that remain are composed mostly of iron, aluminum, and silica, and it is the iron that gives the soils the red color. The red color is not just from iron, but more specifically from unhydrated iron oxides. The red soils are generally on convex landforms that are well drained.
Organic matter can mask soil colors in some areas.
"The red color of soils is generally related to unhydrated iron oxides, although manganese dioxide and partially hydrated iron oxides may also contribute red colors. Since unhydrated iron oxide is relatively unstable under moist conditions, red color generally indicates good drainage and good aeration. Strongly red soils are expected on convex surfaces underlain by pervious rocks. ...
In regions where the normal soils have red color, the well developed red color is one indication that the soils are relatively old or a...
The soil results from a climate of warm (hot) temperatures and high rainfall, so there has been intense weathering of the rocks over the years. High rainfall has leached out most of the bases that were present.
Materials that remain are composed mostly of iron, aluminum, and silica, and it is the iron that gives the soils the red color. The red color is not just from iron, but more specifically from unhydrated iron oxides. The red soils are generally on convex landforms that are well drained.
Organic matter can mask soil colors in some areas.
"The red color of soils is generally related to unhydrated iron oxides, although manganese dioxide and partially hydrated iron oxides may also contribute red colors. Since unhydrated iron oxide is relatively unstable under moist conditions, red color generally indicates good drainage and good aeration. Strongly red soils are expected on convex surfaces underlain by pervious rocks. ...
In regions where the normal soils have red color, the well developed red color is one indication that the soils are relatively old or at least that the soil material has been subjected to relatively intense weathering for a considerable time."
{ This means there is/was water, and since that is the case, organic existed, which means Oil.}
Now here is one issue with private development: as it stands right now, international law is blocking it to a large extent.
We spent more on air conditioning for our troops in deserts than we have on all of NASA's budgets, all of them, for every year... combined.
Our priorities are whack.
Being a part of grand exploration, the fulfillment of an inborn human craving, most certainly has meaning, and most certainly has value. This is without even beginning to speak of the knowledge gained, even through failure.
We also don't need to assume that Space money must come from defense. Defense spending is only about 20% of federal spending. There are other places to look too.
Some examples where space will definitely show profit is in clean up. We have so much debris that it is becoming dangerous for future missions. Odds are cleanup will be one of the first major private professions in space.
We could get into regulation vs deregulation, but that's a different topic.
Give the market time, and you will be amazed at what happens. We will indeed see companies forming to perform cleanup operations around our geosyncronous orbit zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment - forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land - that are shared, used and enjoyed by all."
But all markets are a subset of the global evironment, which at present is an unregulated commons, destined to fail. This is one of the major fatal flaws in libertarian economic philosophies.
I understood that the whole thing was financed by private corporations, is that so?