Is there really a need for space exploration, with the advent of hubble and satelite technology couldn't we leave it at that? why the desire to put humans into space when theres no real worth to it, other than 'we did it first' a little childish but hey thats the global game of choice i suppose, better than blowing each other up i suppose.
Surely the only thing we need to worry about is the probability of meteors hitting us, but we can observe them via hubble and indeed earth bound telescopes.
I totally agree that humans in orbit is a great achievement, but what does it proove, only the old JFK speech comes to mind, 'because we can' yes you can and they did/do, but whats the value?
Burt Rutan as the idea i think, hes taken a different approach to nasa and is trying to do it his way, cheaper and with the idea of space tourists, a global holiday for anyone who could afford it, or even the single group of people who form a space group and do weekend flights into space, a little bit like flight clubs all over the world.
Just my thoughts.

Humans tend to explore unknown territory, it's in our nature. Space exploration is of course not a need, actually it's volunteer, that's why not many contries are part of it. Space exploration is not mostly done for the present, but for the future of mankind.

Space exploration develops our knowledge. One of the objectives on putting man in space is to develop experiments wich machines can't do. The ISS is an outpost in space for future explorations.

Anyways, do you really think we, the human race should limit ourselves into such a small planet, below an atmosphere rather than exploring the unknown, learning about it, since it is all that sorrounds us? Do you think we should be so ignorant?

We put humans in space to witness, study, research what's outside of our little and insignificant planet.


P.S. I got to go to bed.

A good deal of scientific/technology advancement comes from space exploration, and the technology surrounding it. The experiments that have been done aboard the shuttle and the space station have been incredibly valuable to science....

Yeah, a lot of money goes into it, but we get a lot out of it too...

Humanities future is out there

~Thanato

Did we really need the research that led to computers, flight, modern medicine, chemistry and physics? Mankind was surviving in the dark Ages, after all. For that matter, did we really need metalworking, agriculture, writing,sailing, and domesticated animals either? Sure, human families were terrified to come out of the caves, but they survived.

So: yes we could probably get by without space research, we quite literally would never know what we were missing.

PS: Favorite space bumper-sticker saying: "The dinosaurs didn't have a space program."

I think that space is the final fronture but there are still plenty of places left on earth to look at. i think it would be best to look there then at space

Actually, belial, the probability of meteors hitting us is the last thing we need to worry about.

Why the desire to put men in space, to explore?
The answer is as natural as it is to be human.
We have a need and a desire to expand, to explore. Humanity has always been that way and always will be that way.

You say there's no real worth to it?
Consider the simple fact that you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking today, in the format you're asking them; on-line, using a PC or a MAC, without the space program. People take for granted their computers and their microwaves and their cell phones and bluetooths and all that stuff, without ever considering where it all came from.
The advances in modern materials science, manufacturing systems and techniques, meteorologic and Earth sciences, and advancement in medical technologies all sprang from the impetus of the manned space program.

Not only has it been worth it, the effort has paid for itself many, many times over.

People are frequently blinded to these things, and understandably so, since so many alive today were not around when the manned space program was doing all these things.

"We did it first" was a concept that died in 1968, when the politically motivated race to the Moon was over. It has nothing to do with space exploration today.
Today, we do it together.




I believe the very basic outline shows the value.
Entire books have been written on the subject, however.



The idea of "space tourism" is a completely different idea than that of NASA, I agree, but it is completely irrelevant to space exploration. The only value in space tourism will be to the very few who could afford to make the flight. An extremely expensive and dangerous thrill. Perhaps the experience of a lifetime, I should think, but valueless otherwise, save in one respect:

It provides the opportunity for private enterprise to research and develop vehicles for the purpose of space transportation. That's not a bad idea, but it is in its infancy. Ultimately, many, many years down the road, it may provide a means for people to take tourist trips into Earth orbit.

But besides a bit of an ecomomic boom in a relatively small segment of industry, what does it actually do?

It puts people into space, untrained people who are going there to take a look, experience microgravity, probably puke, and come back home. That's fine, but as you said, "...why the desire to put people into space when there's no real worth to it?"

Relative to the massive worth of space exloration and activities as we've been executing for decades, this idea is worthless.

Now, that being said, I will also say that if a private enterprise is capable of developing the capability of space travel for tourists with lots of money, odds are that the name Rutan will play a prominent role in that.

But when that happens, you can be guaranteed that the Federal government and organizations like the FAA and NASA will be the governing bodies overseeing the conduct of these activities...so as to insure high safety and training standards, and to prohibit interference with the real space activities that will be on going in the future.

The basic idea here is that human beings have always explored, have always had that impulse to expand, and they do so.
More than anything else, that drives space flight. That's why we are there, and always will be.

Further, as the real exploration resumes, we'll be the better for it.

That's true, they didn't have one.

It's also true that the dinosaurs are all dead...long ago.



Mankind is exceeding resiliant. But the Dark Ages was certainly no period in which to thrive, or evolve as a human being. The Age of Enlightenment, the Rennaisance, and all that followed was simply a natural progression of humanity. The research you speak of had no way of being denied. It's human to do these things.



They survived because of the developents that THEY worked to discover...think about it.


Human ingenuity and curiosity created stone tools, fire, etc. These things insured human survival. They are the precursor to everything else that humans did, rather naturally, including space flight. Humans wouldn't have survived if they simply remained in caves.



A strange statement. You seem to be arguing that we don't need it, or any of the other things that humans have done. Yet, you say "we'd never know what we were missing."

I think you're right. We wouldn't know what we were missing. In fact, we probably wouldn't be where we are today, and mnay of us wouldn't be alive, without space research...

I thought it was al gore...LOL, that was a joke people.
Some group of students came up with the idea of the internet, they formed a group called the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) after the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik. To help spread research papers without being tagged by the russians, it worked across universities in the late 50's to the early 70's.

I believe the internet began with the US military.
Think on this belial. Picture a city, then picture everything that goes into making that city, all the materials that are used in the construction of the buildings. The steel and other metals that go into making buildings and skyscrapers, the rail system, automobiles, household appliances. Think of all the fuel we use for transport, generating power, heating etc. Now expand that picture to include all the major cities in the world and then include all the minor cities and smaller townships. All these natural resources have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is this planet. With our population growing ever bigger and the need for more homes and more power and more natural resources ever increasing, just how long will this planet be able to sustain us?
There is an entire Asteroid belt out there, beyond Mars, that could provide unlimited(?) supplies of raw natural resources. Mars itself could sustain Human life with a little help from technology already in our possession. So, should this planet suffer some kind of large scale catastrophe, the Human Race could have somewhere to go, could survive.
But not without further space exploration. I personally believe that further space exploration is not only necessary, but vital if our species is to survive in the future. If the planet doesn't suffer some huge natural disaster, we're bound to destroy it ourselves eventually. Without further forays into space, our species will go the same way as the Dinosaurs, and we will have had a space program.

Actually, MID, I completely agree with you on this. I was making the statement to prove a point: to develop and explore is what has made humanity great. Thus, if we want to go farther, we must get off of our butts and make it happen.

I have heard some scientists remark how ineffective manned spaceflight is at research. It may well be true that robotic probes are more efficient at gathering scientific data. But humans are not robots. If humanity is to have a future in space, then human beings must go to space.

Seffy what your talking of is pure science fiction at this stage, and yes the earth is getting smaller, but theres no need to leave here any time soon. The world just needs to look at birth control and better ways of managing the planets resources and how we get rid of certain things, theres no real need to go out into the blackness of space because we are killing ourselves is there?
And it would be a very small minority who would be going off to a new life out there wouldn't it. Y ou can honestly say hand on heart, the idea would save humanity? i don't think so bud.
It's just a luxury for a certain few, it would have no impact on our lives any of us, just look at whats needed to get 3 or 4 into space, then think about millions going up there and then what do you do with them all? freeze them until you get to where ever, that alone is an open ended science at present so what next, space repoduction over the galactic highway? maybe, but again it would a few and you would end up with a load of pedigree pups (inbred) hicks who probably might mutate into what we think aliens might look like - hey maybe thats it, aliens as we know them are merely us from the future?
Back to topic, we don't need space expolration (deep space) anyway, the science just is not there yet, so lets concentrate on this island earth surely?

(Hand on heart), human spaceflight may well save humanity.

Here's how:
If humans do live on other worlds, a catastrophe on Earth will not exterminate humanity, or the species that we bring with us.
Space-based systems can help deal with space-borne threats, such as rogue asteroids and commits.
The very climate sciences we need to terraform another world, also happen to be the sciences we need to protect our own environment.
They very technological advancements, and civil norms, necessary for long-term spaceflight, can also help us manage our own population and resources.

Most certainly, we should also concentrate on preserving the environment of this wondrous planet. But that is no reason to stop looking up...

My point exactly, don't stop looking and doing the LOW earth orbit stuff, but deep space travel is way beyond us at the minute. Concentrate on what we have - surely?

Interesting question and I just want to address some of the comments here with my own opinion. I don't want to quote everyone so I will just paste what each person said that interested me.

"Humans tend to explore unknown territory, it's in our nature."
"the human race should(not) limit ourselves into such a small planet" [sic]

Actually conservatism is in our nature and generally speaking we meaning the majority of humanity often explores the unknown under the desire of one or a few individuals. As well limit or the very nature of limitation is what often produces greater intelligence via finding new ways of doing the same thing mainly because it become a stronger driving force then desire, that is of course the need to do something.

"Yeah, a lot of money goes into it, but we get a lot out of it too..."

We do get alot out of it, however it still isn't worth the price label. Much of what we have eventually would have come albeit in perhaps another form, but at a much slower and adjustable pace so to speak.

"Humanities future is out there"

Definitely have to agree, the question is though if our future is out there why are we out there, is it not the present ?

"Mankind was surviving in the dark Ages, after all"
"Sure, human families were terrified to come out of the caves, but they survived."

Why do people always say mankind when this references is generally referred to a period in european history? There are groups of indegineous people around the world who still live a content lifestyle prior to and up to the present during the time "civilization" came about. Not to mention the chinese during this time were prospering
Yeah that old sterotype of us hiding in caves good grief Human kind existed in this "hiding in the caves" for a few hundred thousand years we existed in civilization for a few thousands, and in the use of all our gains from the space program in the last fifty years, hmm, not much to really compare to, in fact I think we have a great deal to learn from those "cave hiders"


I agree with Belial on the point about us "eventually" going into space, the rest of the opinions are justifications "after the fact" keep in mind humanity has existed just find prior to "civilization" in a more balanced state in regards to his fellow man and environment, and it is only with the DESIRES of the few who brought us here along with horrific war plague poverty class distinction greed zest for power inflation, I mean the list literally goes on. Point is I think our needs should be first desires second, of course we exist in a society exactly the opposite and often try to justify the means to an eventual end we have no way of knowing will even come about. I mean what about all the endeavors we made that didn't come about?

Low Earth orbit missions, moon landings, moon bases, the ISS. This is all done to prepare us to go deeper into space, the ISS behaves like a laboratory and an outpost in space, the moon bases will have the same porpuse, the manned missions are for experiments, all this missions are to help us expand into space, I don't know what's so complicated about this point, it's common sense. As I said in my first post ( wich I get the feeling you didn't even take a glimpse of it), the current Space Flight missions and development are not for the present, but for the future of space flight and humanity, and that includes deep space travel.

oh i did bud.

This comment compells me to ask:

What is the price label?
How expensive is it really to explore space?

NASA's manned space exploration project budget for FY 2007 (Exploration Systems Mission Directorate) was about 3 billion dollars.
That's about $10.00 for each American, a bit less 3 cents per day.
This is what we're spending on Constellation, an expansive program designed to expand human presence in space and provide untold benefits.

3 cents a day.

Do you know how much money is going to be spent on Christmas in the next month?
Let's not go for the total...that's frightening. Let's just look at the next month's ON-LINE expenditures.


It'll be a relatively small fraction of the total "Holiday Season" expenditure in the U.S., but it'll still be 40 BILLION DOLLARS...on...Christmas shopping.

Let's see...

Christmas shopping (on-line, mind you) will be 40 billion dollars in the next 30 days.
That's $4.50 +/- for every person in this country, every day for the next month!

About enough money to fund 2 Apollo programs in their entirety, in a month ( ) and about 150 times what we spend on NASA' exploration project at the moment.

We could fund a complete return to the Moon (the next 10-12 years of Constellation, likely) with three Christmas on-line shopping months!

We will far and away exceed NASA's FY 2007 Space Exploration budget between November 23 and December 6 of this year...buying Christmas stuff.

There was some talk about the price tag being too high???

I am frequently amazed at this high price of space exploration talk.
The reality is that it is cheap.

Pfft.

Hunter-gatherers were not terrified to 'come out of the caves'. They thrived with minimum effort, and maximum leisure time. They lived in a sustainable manner, lived free, and lived well.

Do we need space exploration? Nah. I'll stick to Earth.

Dude, how is this science fiction? We have the necessary technology now to do everything I said. The only thing we don't have is the physical means because we have a total dependency on money and are afraid to part with it. In an ideal world I would agree with you about the birth control and management of natural resources. But as soon as you start on the forced birth control, and forced it would have to be in some countries, then you get people going on about repressed Human rights and religious dogma. China are trying to manage their population at the moment and look what the international community, let alone the Catholic Church (and china isn't even a Catholic nation), are saying about them.
Try telling some of the more advanced countries (such as the UK, the US etc.) that they have to curb their use of things like oil, gas, metal etc. and they would go into apoplexy.
The simple truth is we can't manage the natural resources or the increase of our population. War might be a nasty, horrible thing to have, but it does reduce the population (an awful lot in some cases). However, there is nothing we can do about the natural resources we've already used and I can't see anybody being willing to cut their use of the resources that are left. I mean, when you think about it, there are nine billion people on this planet. How many of them use things that are made of metal and require some sort of energy source to run it every day?
In space, and I am talking about deep space now, there is an abundance of natural resources just waiting to be collected. Whether it's gold in the mountains or iron from the Asteroids, man has an uncanny ability to go and get the job done when he has to and I believe that is what will happen here. But, to do that, we do need to research and develop our ability to travel into the void, to go out into space.
Whether people like it or not, Man's future is in space.

Such figures are realitively cheap, the problem lies more with what could we be doing with that "cheap" price we so eagerly pay out, Oh that's right, last time I checked my check already has the funds taken out prior to me getting it. If I am going to give money willingly or unwillingly out I would rather it go to the aid of say other humans who NEED it an not to a prospect that might one day benefit us.

I think adalwolf said it best "Do we need space exploration? Nah. I'll stick to Earth." I mean I don't know about you Mid but that 10 dollars sure will come in handy during all that xmas shopping I will be doing, gas is a killer

Sometimes, what is relatively cheap is actually very good...



Yes, of course, the old...we could be doing something better with that money argument...(the people who say that rarely think about what they're actually saying).

And how about the fact that the VERY small piece of the Federal pie devoted to the exploration of space has ALREADY BENEFITED US TO AN INCRDIBLE EXTENT, and extent that has paid for itself many times over...?

There's no "might" about it. It already has benefitted us, or perhaps you hadn't noticed the computer that your using to write your comments with?
One of many, many ways that those dollars you speak of have added to the standard of living we all enjoy today.

Do you have any idea how much of the Federal budget actually goes to aid of people who need it...domestic and foreign?
Domestic federal aid...over 400 BILLION annually...foreign, over 40 BILLION annually.

You were saying something about the 3 Billion we are curently spending on space exploration...?






That 10 dollars was PER YEAR!

That's gonna net you about 82 cents over the next month while you're doing your "xmas shopping".

Really, reading all of what was said would be of great help.



You could always write your Congressman and Senator, and tell him or her that you want that 2.7 cents per day that you pay for space exploration initiatives allocated to the 1.2 billion dollars a day that the Federal government spends on aid for other humans who NEED it. That would make a huge difference, and I'm sure you'd feel much better about spending what's left over on xmas shopping!

He obviously didn't read my thread MID.

So it might be true that some people (or most) do spend more money on bubble gum than on space flight, I deduced that by reading some posts here.

Yes, obviously!!!

Is this it...

How about trying it again...using the quote feature properly?!
It is very difficult to discern something logical out of that post, save perhaps some defensive posturing against me for pointing out the obvious...

ok, welll how about all of my response are entirely (each word from the beginning to the end in each sentence) in bold directly under your "MID"s response that are not in bold save the few sentences within that post that are in bold. In other words some what disected this is how I read and respond, what you wrote then respond in bold, then read more of what you wrote then respond and so on. I didn't originate this by the way I've seen it done on this forum a few times.

Heres an example

MID says: Yes, of course, the old...we could be doing something better with that money argument...(the people who say that rarely think about what they're actually saying).

Eieam Wun then says in bold: First my original opinion not argument was in response to do we need space exploration let us make this clear. Secondly of all the things I noted in my first response it was you MID who specifically picked out one aspect which I made a brief statement about and yes I did not know the price tag in relationship to others however my OPINION still stands.

Third, I am well aware of what I am ACTUALLY saying which is why I wrote "If I am going to give money willingly or unwillingly..."

then MID says:And how about the fact that the VERY small piece of the Federal pie devoted to the exploration of space has ALREADY BENEFITED US TO AN INCRDIBLE EXTENT, and extent that has paid for itself many times over...?

There's no "might" about it. It already has benefitted us, or perhaps you hadn't noticed the computer that your using to write your comments with?

Eieam Wun then says in bold:Having a computer does not benefit my very existence knowing that we have a ready to go alternative when oil runs out however would. A computer is a luxury not a neccesity to survival or even to go beyond and thrive, as I already noted in my first post "the rest of the opinions are justifications 'after the fact'". This is self explanatory and is done all the time to reason pointless endeavors governed by desire rather then needs. I can only speak for me when I say I "choose" to come online via the computer to respond here, it isn't a neccesity.

Then MID continues to say: One of many, many ways that those dollars you speak of have added to the standard of living we all enjoy today.



Do you have any idea how much of the Federal budget actually goes to aid of people who need it...domestic and foreign?
Domestic federal aid...over 400 BILLION annually...foreign, over 40 BILLION annually.

of course then Eieam Wun continues to respond in bold saying:Once again, you taken one aspect ONE and only ONE aspect from my first post to redirect the discussion. I will clearly admit no I was not aware of the budget, but space exploration is still unnesseary and un needed, name one thing from the space exploration that has helped insure humanities survival as a whole or just the usa that we can say without it our survival would be in question or less secure?

Then MID:You were saying something about the 3 Billion we are curently spending on space exploration...?

Then Eieam Wun in bold:Actually no you were and still are saying something about budget because that seems to be the limit of discussion on your part I am guessing.

Then MID clarifies my "sarcastical misread" if you will, by saying:That 10 dollars was PER YEAR!

That's gonna net you about 82 cents over the next month while you're doing your "xmas shopping".

Really, reading all of what was said would be of great help.

And Eieam Wun continues to entertain Eieam sarcastic humor by saying in bold:Man so serious, its called sarcasm, it lightens the mood when having to discuss such topics that do little more then redirect the issue at hand.

and MID finishes with a bit of MID sarcastic humor which was funny(not being sarcastic there it was funny):You could always write your Congressman and Senator, and tell him or her that you want that 2.7 cents per day that you pay for space exploration initiatives allocated to the 1.2 billion dollars a day that the Federal government spends on aid for other humans who NEED it. That would make a huge difference, and I'm sure you'd feel much better about spending what's left over on xmas shopping!

and Eieam Wun ends the quoted section in bold with:Now that was funny sarcasm, if only your responses were on the same level



Look, it's opinion I don't see any necessity for space exploration, I sure there are tons of benefits toward improving the lifestyle of humans from space exploration, but so does going xmas shopping and having a good job or credit to fund that shopping. Humanity or the few of humanity tendency who hold sway over the majority, that being desires first needs second, I believe will be its undoing and I firmly believe it has been in all previous cultures. Here in the usa the federal reserve no longer post how much money they will be printed out and since we've long stop backing money by gold there is no limit to how much we can put out, sorry the federal reserve can put out, the usa could fund whatever the heck the usa wants literally. But if we had a stable economy then this comment would hold an ocean: We do get alot out of it, however it still isn't worth the price label.

Hmm

I don't think I can go into space actually. I've smoked menthol cigarettes, so if I went into space the fiberglass would rip my lungs- if the rumor that there is fiberglass in menthol cigs is true.

I don't get it.
Lots of astronauts smoked.
I have never heard that there was fiberglass in menthol cigarettes...sounds like a tale. But, why (if you actually had any in your lungs) would it "rip your lungs" in space? Your statement seems to imply that it wouldn't on the ground here on Earth...

You seem to be closing your case.
I understand that it's opinion, but you do wish to comment, and as a result, say things that paint an unattractive picture.
Thus, I must help you insert your own foot into your mouth.



Excuse me but you ONLY spoke about the money issue:

QUOTE

Now, those bold keys all speak to the price.
That's what I addressed. You said nothing else in the post I addressed.




Really, having a computer doesn't benefit your existence. Maybe not you, but computers have resulted in advancements in other areas that have been of great benefit to you. Computers are indeed luxuries for some people...many actually. However, they are now essentials in many areas of research and technological advancement, most of which has indeed benefitted you, and everyone else.





No, as was clearly illustrated, I adressed the ONLY ASPECT you talked about in your post.



Read your own post. It was you who made the comments about money and how we could spend it on something better. I addressed YOUR POST in it's entirety. It was the LIMIT OF YOUR POST.





You are equating Christmas Shopping with space travel? You honestly believe there is a reasonably equal benefit connected with each? You seem to imply that having a good job and credit is beneficial only in respect to being able to do Christmas shopping (?!).

Your statements are beyond belief.



Let's see...taken in context (as the above statement was latched to the Christmas shopping theory), this seems to imply that people ( "the few who hold sway over the majority") and who place their desires over needs, are not your favorite folks.

However, it also puts you in a pretty ridiculous light. You're implying that the exploration of space--an extension of the basic human NEED to explore, to expand, to discover and understand--is a desire rather than a need. It is actually both. You also imply, by the connection, that CHRISTMAS SHOPPING IS A NEED ( )!

That horrendous majority that spent 3,000,000,000 dollars in 2007 on space exploration initiatives has somehow dominated the poor minority, WHO WILL SPEND APPROXIMATELY 196, 000,000,000 dollars over the course of the next month on Christmas shopping.

...Yes, that's 65 times the NASA exploration budjet...in about 5 weeks...

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. 65 times the ANNUAL NASA EXPLORATION BUDGET--which funds a fundamental human need--will be spent on Christmas...and you have the audacity to make a statement like that?






I understand your opinion. Really I do.
Obviously, Christmas shopping is more important than space exploration, and your not willing to part with the 2.7 cents a day for space exploration...preferring to put it toward something more beneficial: the $650.00 that you (and every American citizen) will, on average, spend on Christmas this year.

I get it ( ).

Now, you asked a question in your post that really requires an answer and a rhetorical follow-up:



I never said anything that implied that human survival was at stake. That's your extrapolation. I spoke to vast benefits of space exploration and off-shoots from the technological efforts involved.
However, since you ask:

Why don't you ask someone who had a serious degenerative disease detected early through the advanced imagiing technologies of modern medicine, technologies which were a direct extension of NASA research and development of microcircuitry and computer technology. For those people, who number in the millions today, it was in fact a matter of survival.

Why don't you ask someone who saved a life by reporting a serious situation instantly on their cell phone, an invention that came directly from space technology.


The list is impossible to enumerate here.

Why don't you give me one single example of how Christmas shopping, which you are so wont to endorse and spend your money on, rather than space exploration (which of course costs you virtually nothing) has ever done to insure the survival of another human being...let alone humanity as a whole...?

The G force from taking off and leaving orbit would cause the fiberglass to tear up my lungs. I don't know if the rumor is true or not, but I'm leaning more towards truth, as cigs have thousands of chemicals and other things in them. Also, chewing tobacco has fiberglass to cut your gums so you absorb the nicotine faster (not that I chew). I'm willing to believe there is fiberglass in menthols (i'm not a huge fan of menthols).

The fibreglass in the tobacco is an urban legend and untrue, if you go to snopes.com you can read about it. Not that tobacco isnt horrible for you by any means, but that part of it has been proven an urban legend...you do not have fiberglass in your lungs...hope that makes your feel better.

I dont think the g forces are as bad as you might think, if I recall correctly the shuttle pulls about 3 g's on takeoff. The configuration has the crew laying flat so that it isnt as if the blood is always trying to drain out of the brain like what we see with fighter pilots who sit upright in fighter planes and can begin to blackout when pulling 7+g's.

Fluff is correct regarding the g forces, and I shall adamantly trust him regarding the fiberglass issue (I don't know (but I can't imagine a reason for fiberglass being in a menthol cigarette(???))...fiberglass is a hazardous substance, and... it's impossible not to trust the integrity of a firefighter!

G forces would have little effect on anything, save your weight, and blood flow. Fluff is also correct that G forces are always taken in what we call "eyeballs-in", an orientation that doesn't result in blood pooling in the lower extremeties (a black out situation), or in the head (a white out situation). G forces are absorbed flat, evenl;y along the body's length, which simply makes one feel damn heavy.
On the Shuttle, they are limited during ascent to 3 gs, and the don't quote get that high on re-entry. 3 g's is mellow.

I've personally endured 7g+ for a time, and it's tolerable, with no ill effects.


On Mercury sub-orbital flights, 10 g's was about the max on re-entry (and that was the maximum value on any manned space flight that I know of), and that's alot (imagine decelerating at 218 miles per hour every second...that's what we're talking about), and yet, one clearly heard Shepard and Grisson talking through these periods (despite about 1500 pounds of force laying on their chests!).

It has no particular effects such as the one you postulate about.
It's uncomfortable, surely, but it doesn't force anything into your tissues.

It is you know...
http://www.wdghu.org/healthinfo/smoking/Wh...naCigarette.рdf

One really important need that we have is energy, it's basically the blood of progression, we need it for everything we have, enjoy and use. One of the biggest steps forward in acquiring an abundant amount of energy without any destructive waste is Helium3.

Helium 3 Fusion

"It's an extremely potent, nonpolluting, with virtually no radioactive by-product." (as quoted from the site bellow)

Powerful Fuel Solution

One of the most abundant places in which has Helium 3 is on our Moon, which by estimate has about 100 million tons of it. Just 4 tons would power all of the US for a year. Now I'm not advocating that we need to start ripping up the Moon and mine it to death, but there is allot of potential for growth and satiability on our planet with using this amazing power source. Without our exploration into space and the drive forward we will not be able to start to acquire this energy source. Power drives progression, just look at what happened when we started to discover and use Steam, Coal, Fossil Fuel, Nuclear and solar power, each time has been a mark in history for human progression.

Just recently China has stated their new ambitious plans for space exploration, you can read more here:

China's plans in space

I strongly feel that humanity has a natural drive to explore and understand the unknown, this drives us and is one of the key reasons on how we got were we are today. By denying the chance to explore space would only hinder us, allow us to keep ripping up our own planet for natural resources and polluting our planet in ways that are irreversible. Let’s expand, explore, discover, invent and progress. To deny this is to ignore who we are.

I think you have a pretty darn good grasp of what's going on vis-a-vis space exploration...and on what humanity is, and always has been about.

bad link

edited to add links to the snopes pages that covers the fiberglass issue: http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/menthol.asp

New link, with proof and payout. http://www.braytonlaw.com/news/verdicts/2000traverso.htm

I perfer an ocean exploration but space is good for now.

We actually do both...NASA is very involved in all areas of scientific research and exploration, including oceanographic.
You can have them both!

Yeah, the atmosphere around the earth is just as particle-filled as the oceans are. 'As above, so below!'

Did I miss something or is there no mention of fiberglass? Asbestos and fiberglass are different matrials...Also, the asbestos in the filters of the cigarettes in question came from 1952-56... So unless you were smoking then...

Why should we NOT explore space.

The arguments given appear to be financial: well this has been well addressed already by previous posters

the next is that we should concentrate on our own planet: err.. ? your implying we have to choose one or the other? Space exploration is in no way detrimental to research about our own planet in fact it compliments it. Understanding our place in the universe can help us learn more about what happanes her on earth. they are not mutually exclusive goals.

The idea we should stick to sorting our own planet out is just ridiculous as an argument against the space programme as the one does not impede the other.

Lol oh oh ok good then. I have both

Explore? We have explored. Should we 'colonize' space? But, that is what they are trying to do before we make earth noninhabitable. Since our psyches have been enslaved by our own throw-away culture, we are projecting this culture and we are throwing away the life giving elements of this earth.

Asbestos is a natural element whereas fiberglass is a manufactured element. Asbestos and fiberglass do the same thing. I don't mean to change the subject, but what picture comes to mind is 9-11-2001 New York. All of the people running and walking through the dust created will hit the doctors offices and hospitals in force anywhere from now to 3 years from now and the medical field will become saturated with colleges and hospitals and home health care nurses and restrictions and every household will have closets full of inhalers and all the children will be obese because the bodies will have to get the oxygen they need from the water they drink.

Colonizing space can bring an almost unlimited number of benefits. Just imagine we colonize an asteroid and use to to mine it's elements aka metals. In this way the Earth doesn't get poluted. There are hundreds of ways to benefit space colonization, I just mentioned one of them in the previous sentence. But first we must keep doing what we are doing now, building our dear ISS, missions.. research and experiments in LEO ( Low Earth Orbit) and visiting the moon for future plans, for the future!

What we have done, vis-a-vis the exploration of space amounts to nothing. It is rather equivalent to sticking the tip of your toe into the ocean, and immediately pulling it out and walking away. Further, exploration is an ongoing and non-ending process, especially with something so vast as space.

Speaking of colonization is really almost ludicrous at this stage of our exploratory process. It is likely centuries away, if that, despite the fact that people at NASA and other scientists and visionaries do think about these things.

We are not trying to colonize space. There are no realistic plans to do so, and no reason to even think about something which is the equivalent of attmpting to pilot a 747 when you've never even been close to an airplane in your life.

Your comment, "Since our psyches have been enslaved by our own throw-away culture, we are projecting this culture and we are throwing away the life giving elements of this earth," seems to indicate that you are perhaps among those who have bought a little too much political banter, and have come to the conclusion, without actually considering the logic and observational substance, that the microcosm of humanity (relative to the scale of this planet we live on) actually can have a profound effect on the planet that it lives on in toto.

That is untenable, and unreasonable.
You do have a point regarding the modern social psyche and our throw away culture. The modern attitudes of socialized humans do pose some profound attitudinal problems. But, while it is true that man kind can, has, and does have an effect on various local ecosystems (visit any major city), there has never been a demonstrated global effect of man. It's virtually impossible.

The planet does not serve man. It serves itself. The planet cannot be affected by what amounts to little more than a pimple on it's surface. The idea that we are destroying the planet is largely a reflection of a political agenda combined with a profound sense of human self-importance.

The planet itself has belched out some pretty profound natural catostrophic events in its time...volcanic eruptions which spewed out more C02 and other pollutants into the atmosphere than all of the automobiles in America could belch out in a decade...in a matter of mere hours. Yet, the planet recovers from that in short order.

The planet's not going anywhere anytime soon, and man will not be contributing to her downfall. On the other hand, the planet, doing what it does very naturally, can have a profound effect on man. And that fact, demonstrated time and time again, has seemingly fed this idea that is borne of over-inflated gradiosity and importance.

We actually think we're so powerful as to effect this planet, and we attach all sorts of effects of ours on things like weather events that we have absolutely no control over and never will. We attempt to actually predict hurricane frequency and intensity, and we fall short every year. The fact that it is demonstrated that local weather cannot be reliably forecast more than 48 hours in advance makes the idea of predicting a hurricane season in total really rather stupid, and there can only be one reason for that inaccurate, and frequently humorous activity:

Humans, as a whole, the most advanced species on the planet, masters of the world they live in, actually think they are so grandiose as to be able to affect the planet! And, when the planet effects us, we cannot accept that she's a hell of a lot bigger, and a hell of alot stronger than we are. That disease makes us think we had something to do with what the planet does all by herself (without a speck of consideration for the puniness of humanity).

We're just too damned self-important. The problem on this planet is people, not the planet. She'll go on for as long as planets do...and never think about us one bit.

Some people realize this, and appropriately emphasise things they can have an effect on, like cleaning up local environs and the like. This will benefit humans who live there. It's a worthy endeavor, but speaking of colonization of space because we're destroying the planet is nonsensical and defies reality.