Hacker News Reader

Comment by genwin | Hacker News Reader

Space exploration has little benefit to the average person, esp. for the environmental damage it does. For most people it's just interesting news. I'd like to see more of that innovative talent and gov't money applied to environmental concerns. (That said, I'm still looking forward to tuning into Mars via a microphone/video placed there. Just no ultra-expensive humans, please.)

View on HN

While space travel may be irrelevant to most today, thanks to those like Musk, it may be very relevant in tomorrow's society.

Why? I see no net benefit to the general public.

Then go do something else.

Why? I'm not doing space exploration as it is.

Not even the offshoot technologies that have been (and will be) invented and improved as part of space exploration?

Doubtful a net benefit. Those come at tremendous cost to the public, like years of extra work per person. We haven't even paid for the Vietnam War yet, and the interest is compounding on that. We're quickly approaching half of every tax dollar spent on interest. Add space exploration, it could reach 90%.

Extra work compared to what? Is there any other reasonable way that space-derived technologies (e.g. those on this list[0]) could have been invented?

If the US wants to pay off it debts, maybe the first thing to do is reduce the amount spend on, for example, the military. The US spends $700+ billion dollars (or 4% of GDP) on its military[1], on something that is even less of a net benefit to humanity: killing people.

Surely the $20 billion[2] currently spent on NASA pales in comparison to that, and the benefit to humanity of non-military technological improvement is far larger. (Clearly, DARPA et al. fund technological improvement too, but the purpose, and first use, of these technologies is normally quite saddening.)

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

One net benefit created by 'space' travel are satellite systems. GPS, and more used by billions every day to make them work better.

Well, that's not space exploration. For example we knew about the benefit of satellites before we spent a dime to achieve orbit; there was no exploration required.

You wouldn't rather we, for instance, mined lifeless asteroids instead of mountains here on Earth?

So much cheaper and environmentally better to tax people for having 3 or more kids instead. Get the population down and we don't need to mine so much. Rockets pollute our atmosphere.

This is an incredibly very simplistic view. Consider the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

P.S. It looks like a Falcon 9 uses about 25000 gallons of kerosene. Assume everyone drives Priuses and gets 50 mpg while driving a reasonable 18000 miles per year. A Falcon 9 launch burns less fuel than less than 100 people do in a year of just living their boring old lives.

Rocket launch pollution is pissing in a metaphorical ocean.

(And of course LOX/LH2 burns to produce water...)

I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public in full for each 25000 gallons of kerosene burned in the atmosphere (perhaps times thousands of rockets), I'm fine with that. But that's unlikely to happen. It'll just become another public cost instead, to make rich people richer, so I'm against it.

That may be what you wish the world was like, but you must realise that expecting that to actually happen is absurdly unrealistic. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I do realise that expecting the world to be improved for the general public is unrealistic, and the vast majority effectively don't support it. Should I just shut up then?

It doesn't really matter what you do. If you are concerned about looking foolish, then probably yes. Otherwise, have at it.

25k Gallons of Kerosene is roughly half the fuel capacity of a 747. (48-65k gallons, depending on which 747). So, that's equivalent to one plane flight from the US to Europe/Asia.

Cheap Space Exploration is like planes or ships were for various generations in the past. It is hard for a man in the old stone age to think of the value of the ships or planes. They look like pointless "advanced technology" to go to places that do not matter. But then time passes and we figure out things like carts,trains,ships,planes and space elevators or solar sails or ion engines are just an obvious part of our economies.

I get your point, and it's a good one. I just don't think it'll work that way with space exploration. I don't believe that spending $trillions we don't have (we'd have to borrow it) will pay off enough to make that money, and the ten times more in interest we'd have to pay, worth it to the general public. As it is my kid will likely have to work until he drops dead at work (no retirement for future average Americans). We've been off course for a long time, and space exploration is part of that veering.

Space flight is an absolutely infinitesimaly small portion of the national budget. You are wasting your brain-cycles worrying about it.

It's 1.4% of discretionary spending today. That's only the principal; another 10X+ is interest payments. Exploring beyond what we have explored so far (e.g. humans on Mars) would take it far higher.

Exactly, it is piss in an ocean.

Regardless, people like you are actually the reason I am thankful that SpaceX exists. It really doesn't matter to them what people like you think, thank FSM...

I support private space exploration, if they recompense the public for any damage they do (unlike, say, mining companies).

Do you really believe that spending trillions fighting for oil is somehow money better spent?? Do you have any clue how much the US blows away on airconditioning in Afghanistan?

Study: Patent Trolls Cost Companies $29 Billion Last Year

It sad that people still believe Space Colonization is so pointless.

> Do you really believe that spending trillions fighting for oil is somehow money better spent??

No, and I didn't imply that either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com