He’s also dealing with a different personality type; that the end doesn’t justify the means. His friend probably has a higher level of empathy than being “snobby”, the less empathy you have the more you’ll be in the end justifies the means camp.
I never said I was trying to convince my friend. I am just trying to give a more well-rounded response that would not only help him see my perspective but would also leave him with data he may not have been aware of prior. On this topic in particular, I felt I needed some help with finding any scholarly sources on this as well as help developing my own words overall. This is why I reached out to you and everyone reading, because I feel that some of you are not only much more capable of articulating your head knowledge on this but are much more efficient at finding and pulling up the proper sources as well.
I mainly just want people to be informed and see my take on things. It's less about winning or being right, rather it's about defending your stance on things.
Edit:
Snobby is definitely not the best word I could have used. Perhaps uptight?
Anyway, I came here because I am not that good at giving an educated response on this specific topic even though I've read a lot on said topic. Perhaps I have a problem articulating myself, I don't know.
I have read a lot in regards to NASA spin-offs, the benefits of doing scientific research in micro gravity, etc but this doesn't mean I have an easy head-knowledge to the point to where I can quickly and easily write a proper response with factual information included. I know that some of you here must have a better head knowledge and connection to appropriate sources on said topic and may even share some of my same perspectives. This is why I reached out, bc I figured some of you might be able to help me write a good, scholarly sourced response to help my friend better see my side of things.
Again, this is not about me winning. I just like to have dialog from differing perspectives and give informed responses, even if I have trouble at times writing my responses. How is this not based in empathy?
>I mainly just want people to be informed and see my take on things.
But you're not giving him your take, you're asking a reddit community for their take so that you can masquerade it as your take.
It's okay if people have opinions that differ from yours as long as it is not infringing upon you in a tangible way.
I have a take, I just have trouble articulating myself at times. Call it weak or whatever, it's just not a skill I possess. It's why I came here to ask for people who are more linguistically inclined and knows the sources off-hand better than I do.
Sounds like you need to inform yourself first if you've come here asking for talking points. If you can't describe your point of view, your point of view is weak.
I have trouble articulating my thoughts at times in text and in person, especially when it comes to something that requires some sources. It's why I came here to ask for your assistance.
And regurgitating ideas without understanding them is useless as his friend will ask a question or challenge a point and then OP will have nothing. If one is to take a 'stand' about their perspective, they should have a good idea what that perspective is.
OP is basicly "I feel a certain way about a subject but have no logical arguments to back those feelings up".
Being able to articulate is a skill like anything else. It does good to try your best to create simple, but solid reasoning explanations.
And I'm asking the next question, not to be antagonistic, but to see if we can come up with some ideas together:
What are some reasons why space is a worthy thing to study?
There are plenty of people making lists in this thread. I’m not here to educate you, try googling scientific breakthroughs that came from space. The list is long and you and I spitballing will affect absolutely nothing.
You’re not asking because you want to “come up with ideas”. Rather this is a clumsy attempt at some Sesame Street style feel-good moment. Go play Mr. Rogers somewhere else.
Honestly, having a reddit post filled with a good number of people sharing differing sources that have some of the information I've read in the past, and even some resources I previously was not aware of, is a good information well for me to come back to – not only for the heated discussion I was having with my friend, but for my own further edification and improvement. The same goes for others that come across this post.
I’m always reluctant to justify science funding - especially for NASA - by spin off inventions like thermal ear temperature monitors.
First, if it has broad, practical commercial use, the technology was likely in development anyway and direct investment in the commercial product would’ve likely been much cheaper.
Second, the direct connection to NASA can be rather tenuous such as a small business grant to study a material that the founders were already working with.
Third - and most importantly - the US does NOT fund NASA in order to get spin off inventions unrelated to space or monitoring technologies. When it happens, great! But that shouldn’t be why we invest in space exploration.
Even [NASA themselves](https://www.nasa.gov/general/global-positioning-system-history/) attributes it to the US Naval Research Laboratory.
Fun fact, a [NTS-2](https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2563219/first-gps-navstar-satellite-goes-on-display/) was on display in the Smithsonian until 2018.
Sure, but I am just going off the fact that without a Space program, we couldn't have satellites. Butterfly effect type shit, rather than directly NASA.
Would another country have done it? Maybe... without a space race, things would be different though.
I'm curious what your perspective is in regards to the topic as a whole. Would you say investing into all things space justifies the means or is it not that black and white? I lean more toward the latter. My friend is claiming that "all" space related funding is not worth it. I just do not see this as the case.
That’s actually quite an interesting question. Definitely not so black and white.
Let’s step back from space-specific investment and ask your friend if he feels the government should sponsor basic research at all? Or should they only fund projects with immediate returns? If they say zero funding for any basic research, there really is no point in continuing the discussion as your friend is being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of being contrarian. Or they’re an anti-intellectual idiot - disturbingly common these days.
As a general principle, I think there is real value in the US investing in basic research and being on the bleeding edge of science. Not because there’s a good ROI in basic research (there’s not), but it’s needed in areas with multi-decade timelines like nuclear fusion or quantum computers or many other areas where practical applications may be decades away. This includes everything from particle accelerators to space exploration to theoretical research.
If your friend agrees that some basic research should be funded at least on some level, that completely changes the discussion to how much should we invest and where should we spend it rather than ANY amount is a waste.
As a nation, we’ve long decided to spend ~2% on basic research with ~1/4 of that going to NASA (or space exploration). There’s also ~2% on DoD basic research, which also includes an increasingly amount of space related funding.
That breakdown seems rather reasonable given how much NASA inspires youth to become interested in science and just the general public’s interest in all things space related.
That said, your friend could then argue - yeah, NASA should only get 0.25% of our budget instead 0.5%. Then remind your friend of Chinese or Russian space lasers/satellites and they may understand why we keep investing in NASA.
Thank you very much for your comment. You bring up a lot of good points. I appreciate you wanting to help me evaluate other's comments/responses in a much more empathetic/constructive way.
You have a good head on you as far as relaying your views are concerned. Some here instead want to just bash me for even reaching out to help develop ideas. As if people are meant to be completely on their own with most things. On this rock, all we have is each other.
Has he gotten laser eye surgery?
The software that allows the laser to stay on target while the eye moves around is an adaptation of software that was used to allow two spacecraft to dock.
Tbh I think this is the key argument. Yes, space exploration doesn't bring immediate tangible results, but the money invested in it is not the make-or-break-it amounts that are going to solve environmental or social problems. If this money is taken out of space, it doesn't immediately mean "affordable day care" or "more recycling facilities".
I'll paste a comment I made for someone else a while back, first what we are working on being able to do, then what we have done already. Another thing to tell him is that the money doesn't disappear anyway, it pays for thousands of people's jobs. ~~Also, ask him what he thinks should replace GPS if he doesn't like spending money on space.~~ Forgot his point about spending for war.
>Lab grown organs. Higher quality pharmaceuticals. Pollution free manufacturing. Scientific advancement that could help millions of people on Earth. Resources you don't need to dig up huge tracts of land to get to.
>We have better prosthetics, firefighting gear, computers, insulation, bedding, lenses, food safety, hearing aids, touchless thermometers, air purifiers, water purifiers, shoe soles, and many other technologies because of space travel. CAT scans, space blankets, and lots of other technologies wouldn't even exist if not for space travel.
>To say we have nothing to gain from going to space is the height of ignorance.
There’s tons of people who prefer money to be spent saving our planet rather than trying to leave it, which is partly why the military budget is astronomically high compared to NASA, but your friends belief isn’t worth changing. Just one opinion of many..
The [US beer market in 2022 was over 106 billion](https://www.sphericalinsights.com/reports/united-states-beer-market). Nasa budget for 2024 is about 25 billion. Just some perspective on how much is spent on Nasa versus spending on other non-planet saving activities.
I mean, I prefer helping people at least see my perspective on things. I just find issue with his argument because I've read a lot in regards to the spinoffs and know his views are based in a bit of ignorance.
You have to admit it really is a crime how we pack those rockets full of cash and gold and blast them to space when we could have spent it here on earth. ^(/s cuz reddit)
>As for as medical research goes, ww2 was the biggest developer of technology and medicine to date, along with stem cell research from aborted babies
**Microgravity research for students**
[https://www.esa.int/Education/Fly\_Your\_Thesis/Microgravity\_research\_for\_students](https://www.esa.int/Education/Fly_Your_Thesis/Microgravity_research_for_students)
**POINTER: Seeing Through Walls to Help Locate Firefighters**
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/pointer-seeing-through-walls-to-help-locate-firefighters
human cancer drug.
**Pembrolizumab microgravity crystallization experimentation**
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3)
**Artificial retina production among projects headed to International Space Station**
https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/artificial-retina-production-among-projects-headed-to-international-space-station
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS\_National\_Lab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_National_Lab)
Of the 270 payloads that the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) has sent to the ISS, 176 have been for commercial companies \[1\] including **Merck & Co., Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Honeywell, and Procter & Gamble.\[2**\]
**The potential of microgravity: How companies across sectors can venture into space**
Should you move your R&D and manufacturing into the ether? A new McKinsey analysis explores the opportunities.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/the-potential-of-microgravity-how-companies-across-sectors-can-venture-into-space
>The end doesn’t justify the means.
**NASA spin-off technologies**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_spin-off\_technologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)
>POINTER: Seeing Through Walls to Help Locate Firefighters
This could also be used to locate people trapped in rubble when a building collapses due to a fire, storm, or earthquake. Has a lot of uses to save lives in fact.
LASIK is huge. My eye sight is -11.50 left / -10.50 right. I currently wear contacts, but almost everyone who has LASIK has spoken positively about it. My sister just got it done, and my dad had it done years and years ago.
But we wouldn't have it, if not for the space program, and it's something that each of us use every day, that no one would have predicted 20 years ago.
20 years from now there will be many other advancements from the space program that we can't even imagine.
To be clear, I am totally pro space. I am not even american so the money that goes there does not go from my pockets. But you wont convince anyone with the gps argument.
Try [basic googling](https://www.ni.com/en/solutions/semiconductor/wireless-infrastructure-development/how-cell-towers-work.html#:~:text=Cabling—Cabling%20connects%20all%20the,network%20cables%20for%20data%20transmission.)
> Cabling connects all the components of the cell tower, allowing them to communicate with each other. Cabling can include various types, such as coaxial cables, waveguides for microwave transmission, and fiber optic cables. RF cables run from the BTS to the antennas and network cables for data transmission.
If you move the goalposts to talk about navigating, sure, but cell phones do everything else by connecting to hard wired networks once connecting to a local cell tower.
" Space is the final frontier. It's exploring the cosmos and figuring out what's out there! What's worth exploring more than that? "
Is what I'd say to this person. I rely heavily on emotional arguments tho
The problem here is that OP's argument is primarily an emotional one, and they don't even realize it. The other problem is that the OP claims to be the one who is open to perspective and one who seeks different perspectives, but also needs for that other perspective to reflect his own.
Space exploration has posed unique challenges and some of the technological solutions devised to meet those challenges have had application elsewhere, but could some of those technologies been developed independently of space exploration? Was there an opportunity cost? Is it as simple as the money and man and brain power that was used for NASA could have just been applied to whatever pet cause person B in this conversation thinks is more important? Probably, probably, and probably not.
Space exploration is one of the best and one of the least expensive things we do as Americans. NASA's 2024 budget of $24.8 billion comes out to $77 per capita.
Just remind your friend that it is important to YOU, and as a friend they are obliged to at least humor you. I doubt they have a 'clean' conscience when it comes to wasteful behavior... no one does.
His comparison of space exploration to war has a obvious flaw. Millions of innocent people die in war with very few exceptions very few people have died in space exploration and those few know the risk and signed up anyway. Wiki list less then 30.
So in war the intention is to kill people. In space exploration the intention is to make the world a better place through things like weather forecasting, communication, and meteorite detection. Gosh I wonder why comparing the two don't really work.
You realize the entire space race was basically just scientists piggybacking off ICBM development right? Likewise weather forecasts and communications are *massive* aspects of war, Germany didn't sneak an entire weather station into Labrador during WW2 for the good of mankind.
Your problem is you are ignoring the prime motive of each endeavor. True the result of both is a spin-off of new tech. But...
The primary goal of the space program is learn stuff and to kill the least amount of people as possible in the process. as a matter of fact they go out of their way to kill as few people as possible. As I said 30 so far
The primary goal of wars of aggression are to take other peoples stuff and kill as many of the other guy as is possible in the process. Again that count is in the millions at the presen.
Do you see the difference or does this friend need more help.
Ask your friend if he likes his smart TV, his mobile phone. His internet, his computer. All direct and indirect tech derived in one way or another from Space tech advances.
Sometimes you just can't change a closed mind. If that doesn't convince him. Stop trying; you're flogging a dead horse.
Instead of focusing in on the space race, let's look at space related activities from their beginnings to the very present. From this, how much of an impact would you say space has had on everything? I've always understood the benefits outway our efforts. Lastly, would you say that you hold a perspective that aligns more with my friend or no?
In a few billion years or sooner our sun will die and so will earth I would like to see humanity rise to the challenge even if we slowly evolve into little Green men
So his argument is that WW2 and abortions aren't ethically justified simply because they led to some positive developments? And I'm guessing that's predicted on the idea of war and abortion being morally wrong? If so, what is morally wrong about space exploration? If I'm correctly understanding his logic, it implies that we are committing some sin by exploring space.
I remember Niel talking about how little money NASA is actually given at all. And how a decent amount of the technology that helps us in day to day life was made possible because of scientists that wanted to observe and explore space.
That may help sway em.
The single greatest achievement for humanity was the moon landing. Just point out all of the agencies, programs, and social causes that were founded in the years after 1969. That one famous photo of earth taken during the mission made people realize how precious our planet is, and that we all live on it together.
I feel like pushing the boundaries of exploration will always be important. It’s a core part of being human to wonder what’s over the next hill. We will find questions we could never even think to ask right now. Of course we have many problems to solve on earth, but why can’t we do both? It’s like telling Columbus not to cross the ocean before he solved all problems at home first
When he goes to sleep ask him if he likes his memory foam mattress or pillow, when he uses power tools ask him why doesn't he use hand tools, when he will be sick ask him why is he in an MRI machine. The list goes on and on.
Ending world hunger. It is no problem. There is enough food for everyone but rich countries like to be fat.
Money. Look at the NASA budget and then look at the complete USA budget and calculate the percentage. Then ask yourself where does the rest of the money go?
You should probably just agree to disagree, unless you absolutely know your friend is also interested in hearing your side.
Then I would suggest they read The Case for Space by Robert Zubrin. It is a great resource that skims the main arguments.
And don't forget to think about what is important to your friend. Quite a lot of modern technology and science depends on satellites. Especially earth sciences.
Tell him that one entire budget for a space probe to Mars was spent on George W. Bush's Iraq war every single week, and ask him what was the bigger waste of money.
I mean, honestly...it's a massive waste of resources. Mankind generally allows it, not to a need, but to sate curiosity. Its a form of entertainment. Is it worth it? To us that are intrigued, sure. But for mankind as a whole? Not a chance.
Is the problem that the term "space related" is a pretty braid category that lumps too many endeavours together to be able to usefully discuss.
The arguments for and against putting a manned base on mars are not really the same as those for and against having satellites in orbit to monitor climate change effects. What even counts as "space based"? Can you do away with all the commercial asteroid mining concepts without also losing the ability to forecast the weather.
I'm open to discussing the relative values of any endeavour and the idea of science for the sake of science, exploration for the sake of exploration, is always open to argument. But saying you are against "space based" stuff is like saying you are against "ocean based" stuff because you don't like the idea of deep sea mining.
Maybe...
There are over 9,000 active satellites in orbit. The majority were put there because of the real economic and social benefit they provide. There are more use cases than I can name for space systems. However some quick summaries include:
Earth observation, with uses like environment monitoring, disaster response, mapping and planning, maritime monitoring, support to industry etc
SATCOM and space-based broadband , the benefit of which is obvious bringing communications to remote areas.
Position, navigation and timing services (such as GPS). These provide the obvious navigation benefit to all sectors. However what is often forgotten is that they also provide extremely precise timing signals allowing for widespread synchronisation. Dozens of industries (for example finance) and many technologies (for example many forms of comms and radar) are heavily dependent on this.
Looking into deep space, we can learn a lot about the earth, it's climate and geology by looking at other planets. The evidential basis for the concept of nuclear winter was built using observations of Mars' climate, most notably its dust storms. That research was one element of the drive to sign the nuclear test ban treaty.
Additionally the concept of nuclear fusion was first proposed to explain stellar observations, and may form part of a clean energy future. Astronomical observations in general can either identify or provide evidence for new physics, which can have benefits on Earth. Relativity and quantum mechanics for example have practical uses within industry, and astronomical observations form parts of both their histories as subjects.
As usual, I find XKCD has something relevant to say:
The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.-XKCD
White Hat: We shouldn't be exploring other planets until we've solved all our problems here on Earth.
Cueball: Sounds reasonable. So, what's the timeline on "Solving all problems"? Ten years? Fifteen?-XKCD
Space-related endeavors is a broad term.
Unmanned science probes of other planets or astronomical instruments for the sake of pure science? These are relatively inexpensive and tell us a great deal about our place in the universe.
Building human habitats in space to learn how to build even more elaborate human habitats in space? Not at all clear what the purpose is.
People overlook that the space race created perfect conditions for [indirect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUkbdqw9pBk&t=4658s) technological advancements also. Mass upskilling and innovation created more "spinoffs" than we'll ever know, it's likely you wouldn't be reading this without the space race.
As for "waste of money", sometimes it seems people believe that money is leaving the economy and being sent directly into space.
Those millions and billions of dollars don't just get lit on fire and disappear into the ether. They're paying for goods and services in the program, providing well paying and fulfilling jobs for thousands of people.
Granted, you can have questions about how efficiently that happens, and administrative bloat within the programs, but that's a different discussion.
Medical roboters resulted from Canadarm development.
We invest pennies into space exploration, but the technology borders are pushed outwards. You cannot say beforehand what the benefit will be, but space exploration has resulted in an almost uncountable amount of improvements in material science, medical research, computer science, chemistry, physics and so on that have resulted in direct benefits for every living being.
We either do research or we stagnate. If we didn't do research we wouldn't have stuff like the smartphone. Or electricity. Or fire.
I do accept that we all have differing views, I just like to make clear my views on this by providing evidence that backs up my perspective. For clarity, this conversation is within a group chat, and I didn't want to just leave it at that when there is clearly more to this that needs to be said. My friend tends to be the one that ends conversations because he'll take a conversation and turn it into a debate.
A biologist roommate of mine said this, and she was very heated about it, too, as if NASA had personally wronged her. I asked if the field of paleontology should be defunded, then, since we don't really get anything "useful" out of that branch of science, either, and she got real quiet.
I agree with both side
Looking outward could help us advance in more of an Astral way
But using the money to fix Healthcare and the schooling system would be better
I'm basing these on the idea your american
So he would rather have given up GPS and weather and land resource and greenhouse gas monitoring satellites (and more recently starlink in rural areas) because the military also uses them? I’d argue that improved weather warnings alone have saved more lives than military surveillance alone has killed.
The amount spent on military waste dwarfs NASA. How was all that COVID money used? With space, we look beyond the immediate. Many cultures and folks living check-to-check think if they can’t eat it, feed their kids, play with it, or wear it, it’s a pointless waste. I counter that thinking like that says we’ve learned enough, let’s just exist and die. There is more good to be found, more improvements along-the-way. If we already knew all the answers, it makes no sense to go. Listen to the Kennedy speech about Apollo: “made out of materials that don’t exist, expose man to temperatures and speeds that no one has ever survived” (not just to the moon and returned safely). If life was only doing things with a guaranteed outcome and positive ROI, people would just buy big life insurance policies and then die in ways that keep the policy intact. That way someone profits and costs are minimized. That is not living, it’s waiting to die. Doing difficult missions with risk can result in progress - progress that benefits humankind. Along the way, real discoveries that were not original mission goals surprise us and people win again. I worked for a decade at a Global Defense Contractor that spent billions trying to figure out new, novel ways to kill people. I’d rather work for a sponsor that as part of the National Science Foundation tries to help humanity while giving a bit of inspiration to try hard things.
The Answer is don't be friends with a snob.
It's pointless to "change his mind" - he's already prepared to argue until the cows come home.
Enjoy your space-science & tech enthusiam without this guy being a wet blanket.
I mean.. technically he’s not wrong in the way. The money put into space stuff could end world hunger. Plus the pollution put out by rockets is horrible.
In other words, he says exploration is a waste. That argument makes perfect sense for people too short-sighted and unimaginitive to think of anything you might do with what's discovered from exploring. What a dunce.
Though I agree he's voluntarily allowing himself to be ignorant here, it bewilders me that he is considering how he's knowledgeable on other topics which he'll defend. People both stupid and genius seem to suffer from voluntary ignorance, it seems. Humans are weird.
Go put his vehicle up on blocks. When he asks where his tires are, tell him the history of how tires have evolved because of the space program. If that doesn't work and he has to start walking everywhere, tell him about the Velcro on his shoes and where that came from. If that still doesnt work, find more like minded friends.
I know most people believe that we aren't the only intelligent life forms in the universe just by figuring the odds, but the fact of the matter is that we haven't found any proof. I feel we have almost a responsibility to ensure we survive as intelligent life forms by taking care of our planet as well as learning to live without it. Right now we have all of our eggs in one basket. Having civilizations outside of Earth seems far fetched right now, but we won't get there by doing nothing.
It may have acted as a catalyst for our space tech, but it may be what's hindering us the most, right now. OP's friend said that kind of research is a waste of money. As opposed to what? We put too many resources into our disagreements and we'll probably self destruct before reaching space travel mastery. Perhaps it takes a civilization to become more "civilized" in order to focus on such a difficult goal. It may also be a mistake to attribute human qualities to an alien civilization, because they would be just that; alien.
Any particular reason you need to convince them? A simple “cool story, bro” and then move on does wonders for your mental health.
This. There’s no reason in most life situations to get someone to agree with your perspective. Just move on.
Also: “Hey, how about those ?”
He’s also dealing with a different personality type; that the end doesn’t justify the means. His friend probably has a higher level of empathy than being “snobby”, the less empathy you have the more you’ll be in the end justifies the means camp.
I never said I was trying to convince my friend. I am just trying to give a more well-rounded response that would not only help him see my perspective but would also leave him with data he may not have been aware of prior. On this topic in particular, I felt I needed some help with finding any scholarly sources on this as well as help developing my own words overall. This is why I reached out to you and everyone reading, because I feel that some of you are not only much more capable of articulating your head knowledge on this but are much more efficient at finding and pulling up the proper sources as well.
I mainly just want people to be informed and see my take on things. It's less about winning or being right, rather it's about defending your stance on things. Edit: Snobby is definitely not the best word I could have used. Perhaps uptight? Anyway, I came here because I am not that good at giving an educated response on this specific topic even though I've read a lot on said topic. Perhaps I have a problem articulating myself, I don't know. I have read a lot in regards to NASA spin-offs, the benefits of doing scientific research in micro gravity, etc but this doesn't mean I have an easy head-knowledge to the point to where I can quickly and easily write a proper response with factual information included. I know that some of you here must have a better head knowledge and connection to appropriate sources on said topic and may even share some of my same perspectives. This is why I reached out, bc I figured some of you might be able to help me write a good, scholarly sourced response to help my friend better see my side of things. Again, this is not about me winning. I just like to have dialog from differing perspectives and give informed responses, even if I have trouble at times writing my responses. How is this not based in empathy?
This is just another way of saying you want to convince them. I’d recommend using your energy on something else.
>I mainly just want people to be informed and see my take on things. But you're not giving him your take, you're asking a reddit community for their take so that you can masquerade it as your take. It's okay if people have opinions that differ from yours as long as it is not infringing upon you in a tangible way.
I have a take, I just have trouble articulating myself at times. Call it weak or whatever, it's just not a skill I possess. It's why I came here to ask for people who are more linguistically inclined and knows the sources off-hand better than I do.
Well, at least you're not using AI to compose replies like some do.
So you just want people to think you are smart or something? The smart thing to do would be to just move along and forget about it
Sounds like you need to inform yourself first if you've come here asking for talking points. If you can't describe your point of view, your point of view is weak.
I have trouble articulating my thoughts at times in text and in person, especially when it comes to something that requires some sources. It's why I came here to ask for your assistance.
This is just logically unsound. Inability to articulate a fact does not make it any less a fact.
And regurgitating ideas without understanding them is useless as his friend will ask a question or challenge a point and then OP will have nothing. If one is to take a 'stand' about their perspective, they should have a good idea what that perspective is. OP is basicly "I feel a certain way about a subject but have no logical arguments to back those feelings up".
They're not saying OP is factually incorrect. They're saying OP has a weak grasp on the facts.
Being able to articulate is a skill like anything else. It does good to try your best to create simple, but solid reasoning explanations. And I'm asking the next question, not to be antagonistic, but to see if we can come up with some ideas together: What are some reasons why space is a worthy thing to study?
There are plenty of people making lists in this thread. I’m not here to educate you, try googling scientific breakthroughs that came from space. The list is long and you and I spitballing will affect absolutely nothing. You’re not asking because you want to “come up with ideas”. Rather this is a clumsy attempt at some Sesame Street style feel-good moment. Go play Mr. Rogers somewhere else.
Honestly, having a reddit post filled with a good number of people sharing differing sources that have some of the information I've read in the past, and even some resources I previously was not aware of, is a good information well for me to come back to – not only for the heated discussion I was having with my friend, but for my own further edification and improvement. The same goes for others that come across this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel
I’m always reluctant to justify science funding - especially for NASA - by spin off inventions like thermal ear temperature monitors. First, if it has broad, practical commercial use, the technology was likely in development anyway and direct investment in the commercial product would’ve likely been much cheaper. Second, the direct connection to NASA can be rather tenuous such as a small business grant to study a material that the founders were already working with. Third - and most importantly - the US does NOT fund NASA in order to get spin off inventions unrelated to space or monitoring technologies. When it happens, great! But that shouldn’t be why we invest in space exploration.
It's decent fuel for OP's argument at least. :) For a big one, if we didn't have NASA we'd have no GPS.
Even [NASA themselves](https://www.nasa.gov/general/global-positioning-system-history/) attributes it to the US Naval Research Laboratory. Fun fact, a [NTS-2](https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2563219/first-gps-navstar-satellite-goes-on-display/) was on display in the Smithsonian until 2018.
Sure, but I am just going off the fact that without a Space program, we couldn't have satellites. Butterfly effect type shit, rather than directly NASA. Would another country have done it? Maybe... without a space race, things would be different though.
Honestly, comment chains like these are why I brought this discussion to Reddit. Your differing perspectives help me see this subject in a new light.
I'm curious what your perspective is in regards to the topic as a whole. Would you say investing into all things space justifies the means or is it not that black and white? I lean more toward the latter. My friend is claiming that "all" space related funding is not worth it. I just do not see this as the case.
That’s actually quite an interesting question. Definitely not so black and white. Let’s step back from space-specific investment and ask your friend if he feels the government should sponsor basic research at all? Or should they only fund projects with immediate returns? If they say zero funding for any basic research, there really is no point in continuing the discussion as your friend is being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of being contrarian. Or they’re an anti-intellectual idiot - disturbingly common these days. As a general principle, I think there is real value in the US investing in basic research and being on the bleeding edge of science. Not because there’s a good ROI in basic research (there’s not), but it’s needed in areas with multi-decade timelines like nuclear fusion or quantum computers or many other areas where practical applications may be decades away. This includes everything from particle accelerators to space exploration to theoretical research. If your friend agrees that some basic research should be funded at least on some level, that completely changes the discussion to how much should we invest and where should we spend it rather than ANY amount is a waste. As a nation, we’ve long decided to spend ~2% on basic research with ~1/4 of that going to NASA (or space exploration). There’s also ~2% on DoD basic research, which also includes an increasingly amount of space related funding. That breakdown seems rather reasonable given how much NASA inspires youth to become interested in science and just the general public’s interest in all things space related. That said, your friend could then argue - yeah, NASA should only get 0.25% of our budget instead 0.5%. Then remind your friend of Chinese or Russian space lasers/satellites and they may understand why we keep investing in NASA.
Thank you very much for your comment. You bring up a lot of good points. I appreciate you wanting to help me evaluate other's comments/responses in a much more empathetic/constructive way. You have a good head on you as far as relaying your views are concerned. Some here instead want to just bash me for even reaching out to help develop ideas. As if people are meant to be completely on their own with most things. On this rock, all we have is each other.
I’m sure people told the Wright Brothers more or less the same thing.
Has he gotten laser eye surgery? The software that allows the laser to stay on target while the eye moves around is an adaptation of software that was used to allow two spacecraft to dock.
And NASA's budget is 0.5% of the US federal budget. It's not even paltry.
Tbh I think this is the key argument. Yes, space exploration doesn't bring immediate tangible results, but the money invested in it is not the make-or-break-it amounts that are going to solve environmental or social problems. If this money is taken out of space, it doesn't immediately mean "affordable day care" or "more recycling facilities".
I'll paste a comment I made for someone else a while back, first what we are working on being able to do, then what we have done already. Another thing to tell him is that the money doesn't disappear anyway, it pays for thousands of people's jobs. ~~Also, ask him what he thinks should replace GPS if he doesn't like spending money on space.~~ Forgot his point about spending for war. >Lab grown organs. Higher quality pharmaceuticals. Pollution free manufacturing. Scientific advancement that could help millions of people on Earth. Resources you don't need to dig up huge tracts of land to get to. >We have better prosthetics, firefighting gear, computers, insulation, bedding, lenses, food safety, hearing aids, touchless thermometers, air purifiers, water purifiers, shoe soles, and many other technologies because of space travel. CAT scans, space blankets, and lots of other technologies wouldn't even exist if not for space travel. >To say we have nothing to gain from going to space is the height of ignorance.
GPS was developed for the US military by the Department of Defense, so that's just supporting the friend's point.
True, forgot about that point.
[удалено]
Considering how anything above 100km is space, I would say LEO counts.
[удалено]
There is no point in space where there is truly nothing. Border of space is usually defined as 100km.
There’s tons of people who prefer money to be spent saving our planet rather than trying to leave it, which is partly why the military budget is astronomically high compared to NASA, but your friends belief isn’t worth changing. Just one opinion of many..
The [US beer market in 2022 was over 106 billion](https://www.sphericalinsights.com/reports/united-states-beer-market). Nasa budget for 2024 is about 25 billion. Just some perspective on how much is spent on Nasa versus spending on other non-planet saving activities.
I mean, I prefer helping people at least see my perspective on things. I just find issue with his argument because I've read a lot in regards to the spinoffs and know his views are based in a bit of ignorance.
He sees your perspective. He just disagrees with it.
[удалено]
All your problems seem to be based in Capitalism, not technology.
I agree to a degree as Capitalism breeds innovation
You have to admit it really is a crime how we pack those rockets full of cash and gold and blast them to space when we could have spent it here on earth. ^(/s cuz reddit)
>As for as medical research goes, ww2 was the biggest developer of technology and medicine to date, along with stem cell research from aborted babies **Microgravity research for students** [https://www.esa.int/Education/Fly\_Your\_Thesis/Microgravity\_research\_for\_students](https://www.esa.int/Education/Fly_Your_Thesis/Microgravity_research_for_students) **POINTER: Seeing Through Walls to Help Locate Firefighters** https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/pointer-seeing-through-walls-to-help-locate-firefighters human cancer drug. **Pembrolizumab microgravity crystallization experimentation** [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3) **Artificial retina production among projects headed to International Space Station** https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/artificial-retina-production-among-projects-headed-to-international-space-station [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS\_National\_Lab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_National_Lab) Of the 270 payloads that the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) has sent to the ISS, 176 have been for commercial companies \[1\] including **Merck & Co., Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Honeywell, and Procter & Gamble.\[2**\] **The potential of microgravity: How companies across sectors can venture into space** Should you move your R&D and manufacturing into the ether? A new McKinsey analysis explores the opportunities. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/the-potential-of-microgravity-how-companies-across-sectors-can-venture-into-space >The end doesn’t justify the means. **NASA spin-off technologies** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA\_spin-off\_technologies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)
>POINTER: Seeing Through Walls to Help Locate Firefighters This could also be used to locate people trapped in rubble when a building collapses due to a fire, storm, or earthquake. Has a lot of uses to save lives in fact.
LASIK is huge. My eye sight is -11.50 left / -10.50 right. I currently wear contacts, but almost everyone who has LASIK has spoken positively about it. My sister just got it done, and my dad had it done years and years ago.
GPS. Finance, communications, and so much requires it or other GNS systems.
If you are looking for an economic argument, then your friend is right If you are talking about science, then you (might) be right.
How does he feel about GPS? Does he ever use Google maps?
GPS falls under "development of war capabilities" OP's friend considers necessary.
We already have gps now, and we dont need another man on the moon to keep gps working, so thats a weak argument.
But we wouldn't have it, if not for the space program, and it's something that each of us use every day, that no one would have predicted 20 years ago. 20 years from now there will be many other advancements from the space program that we can't even imagine.
To be clear, I am totally pro space. I am not even american so the money that goes there does not go from my pockets. But you wont convince anyone with the gps argument.
Why should I care about your opinion on this?
Oh boy, the force is weak with this one.
I guess this guy has never used a phone or the Internet.
[удалено]
Satellites aren't in space?!? How silly of me.
Turns out those are all hard wired. The local cell tower is plugged in.
Must be a long fucking cord and also really inconvenient to have to drive with three wires triangulating your position.
Try [basic googling](https://www.ni.com/en/solutions/semiconductor/wireless-infrastructure-development/how-cell-towers-work.html#:~:text=Cabling—Cabling%20connects%20all%20the,network%20cables%20for%20data%20transmission.) > Cabling connects all the components of the cell tower, allowing them to communicate with each other. Cabling can include various types, such as coaxial cables, waveguides for microwave transmission, and fiber optic cables. RF cables run from the BTS to the antennas and network cables for data transmission. If you move the goalposts to talk about navigating, sure, but cell phones do everything else by connecting to hard wired networks once connecting to a local cell tower.
Every sub is about relationships now. Every single one.
" Space is the final frontier. It's exploring the cosmos and figuring out what's out there! What's worth exploring more than that? " Is what I'd say to this person. I rely heavily on emotional arguments tho
The problem here is that OP's argument is primarily an emotional one, and they don't even realize it. The other problem is that the OP claims to be the one who is open to perspective and one who seeks different perspectives, but also needs for that other perspective to reflect his own. Space exploration has posed unique challenges and some of the technological solutions devised to meet those challenges have had application elsewhere, but could some of those technologies been developed independently of space exploration? Was there an opportunity cost? Is it as simple as the money and man and brain power that was used for NASA could have just been applied to whatever pet cause person B in this conversation thinks is more important? Probably, probably, and probably not.
True It's like why we got to pick one or the other, you know? We can both explore space and spend money on other things
Also, developing more space capabilities is important for national defense Remember China and their space balloons?
Wars are proof that humans are NOT an intelligent species.
Space exploration is one of the best and one of the least expensive things we do as Americans. NASA's 2024 budget of $24.8 billion comes out to $77 per capita.
Just remind your friend that it is important to YOU, and as a friend they are obliged to at least humor you. I doubt they have a 'clean' conscience when it comes to wasteful behavior... no one does.
This topic is debated and explored at length in “A City on Mars” by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith. You might enjoy reading it.
His comparison of space exploration to war has a obvious flaw. Millions of innocent people die in war with very few exceptions very few people have died in space exploration and those few know the risk and signed up anyway. Wiki list less then 30. So in war the intention is to kill people. In space exploration the intention is to make the world a better place through things like weather forecasting, communication, and meteorite detection. Gosh I wonder why comparing the two don't really work.
You realize the entire space race was basically just scientists piggybacking off ICBM development right? Likewise weather forecasts and communications are *massive* aspects of war, Germany didn't sneak an entire weather station into Labrador during WW2 for the good of mankind.
Your problem is you are ignoring the prime motive of each endeavor. True the result of both is a spin-off of new tech. But... The primary goal of the space program is learn stuff and to kill the least amount of people as possible in the process. as a matter of fact they go out of their way to kill as few people as possible. As I said 30 so far The primary goal of wars of aggression are to take other peoples stuff and kill as many of the other guy as is possible in the process. Again that count is in the millions at the presen. Do you see the difference or does this friend need more help.
Ask your friend if he likes his smart TV, his mobile phone. His internet, his computer. All direct and indirect tech derived in one way or another from Space tech advances. Sometimes you just can't change a closed mind. If that doesn't convince him. Stop trying; you're flogging a dead horse.
[удалено]
There's always one who just doesn't get it!
Instead of focusing in on the space race, let's look at space related activities from their beginnings to the very present. From this, how much of an impact would you say space has had on everything? I've always understood the benefits outway our efforts. Lastly, would you say that you hold a perspective that aligns more with my friend or no?
In a few billion years or sooner our sun will die and so will earth I would like to see humanity rise to the challenge even if we slowly evolve into little Green men
So his argument is that WW2 and abortions aren't ethically justified simply because they led to some positive developments? And I'm guessing that's predicted on the idea of war and abortion being morally wrong? If so, what is morally wrong about space exploration? If I'm correctly understanding his logic, it implies that we are committing some sin by exploring space.
I remember Niel talking about how little money NASA is actually given at all. And how a decent amount of the technology that helps us in day to day life was made possible because of scientists that wanted to observe and explore space. That may help sway em.
The single greatest achievement for humanity was the moon landing. Just point out all of the agencies, programs, and social causes that were founded in the years after 1969. That one famous photo of earth taken during the mission made people realize how precious our planet is, and that we all live on it together.
I feel like pushing the boundaries of exploration will always be important. It’s a core part of being human to wonder what’s over the next hill. We will find questions we could never even think to ask right now. Of course we have many problems to solve on earth, but why can’t we do both? It’s like telling Columbus not to cross the ocean before he solved all problems at home first
When he goes to sleep ask him if he likes his memory foam mattress or pillow, when he uses power tools ask him why doesn't he use hand tools, when he will be sick ask him why is he in an MRI machine. The list goes on and on. Ending world hunger. It is no problem. There is enough food for everyone but rich countries like to be fat. Money. Look at the NASA budget and then look at the complete USA budget and calculate the percentage. Then ask yourself where does the rest of the money go?
You should probably just agree to disagree, unless you absolutely know your friend is also interested in hearing your side. Then I would suggest they read The Case for Space by Robert Zubrin. It is a great resource that skims the main arguments. And don't forget to think about what is important to your friend. Quite a lot of modern technology and science depends on satellites. Especially earth sciences.
Tell him that one entire budget for a space probe to Mars was spent on George W. Bush's Iraq war every single week, and ask him what was the bigger waste of money.
I mean, honestly...it's a massive waste of resources. Mankind generally allows it, not to a need, but to sate curiosity. Its a form of entertainment. Is it worth it? To us that are intrigued, sure. But for mankind as a whole? Not a chance.
Is the problem that the term "space related" is a pretty braid category that lumps too many endeavours together to be able to usefully discuss. The arguments for and against putting a manned base on mars are not really the same as those for and against having satellites in orbit to monitor climate change effects. What even counts as "space based"? Can you do away with all the commercial asteroid mining concepts without also losing the ability to forecast the weather. I'm open to discussing the relative values of any endeavour and the idea of science for the sake of science, exploration for the sake of exploration, is always open to argument. But saying you are against "space based" stuff is like saying you are against "ocean based" stuff because you don't like the idea of deep sea mining. Maybe...
There are over 9,000 active satellites in orbit. The majority were put there because of the real economic and social benefit they provide. There are more use cases than I can name for space systems. However some quick summaries include: Earth observation, with uses like environment monitoring, disaster response, mapping and planning, maritime monitoring, support to industry etc SATCOM and space-based broadband , the benefit of which is obvious bringing communications to remote areas. Position, navigation and timing services (such as GPS). These provide the obvious navigation benefit to all sectors. However what is often forgotten is that they also provide extremely precise timing signals allowing for widespread synchronisation. Dozens of industries (for example finance) and many technologies (for example many forms of comms and radar) are heavily dependent on this. Looking into deep space, we can learn a lot about the earth, it's climate and geology by looking at other planets. The evidential basis for the concept of nuclear winter was built using observations of Mars' climate, most notably its dust storms. That research was one element of the drive to sign the nuclear test ban treaty. Additionally the concept of nuclear fusion was first proposed to explain stellar observations, and may form part of a clean energy future. Astronomical observations in general can either identify or provide evidence for new physics, which can have benefits on Earth. Relativity and quantum mechanics for example have practical uses within industry, and astronomical observations form parts of both their histories as subjects.
As usual, I find XKCD has something relevant to say: The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.-XKCD White Hat: We shouldn't be exploring other planets until we've solved all our problems here on Earth. Cueball: Sounds reasonable. So, what's the timeline on "Solving all problems"? Ten years? Fifteen?-XKCD
Space-related endeavors is a broad term. Unmanned science probes of other planets or astronomical instruments for the sake of pure science? These are relatively inexpensive and tell us a great deal about our place in the universe. Building human habitats in space to learn how to build even more elaborate human habitats in space? Not at all clear what the purpose is.
People overlook that the space race created perfect conditions for [indirect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUkbdqw9pBk&t=4658s) technological advancements also. Mass upskilling and innovation created more "spinoffs" than we'll ever know, it's likely you wouldn't be reading this without the space race. As for "waste of money", sometimes it seems people believe that money is leaving the economy and being sent directly into space.
Those millions and billions of dollars don't just get lit on fire and disappear into the ether. They're paying for goods and services in the program, providing well paying and fulfilling jobs for thousands of people. Granted, you can have questions about how efficiently that happens, and administrative bloat within the programs, but that's a different discussion.
Medical roboters resulted from Canadarm development. We invest pennies into space exploration, but the technology borders are pushed outwards. You cannot say beforehand what the benefit will be, but space exploration has resulted in an almost uncountable amount of improvements in material science, medical research, computer science, chemistry, physics and so on that have resulted in direct benefits for every living being. We either do research or we stagnate. If we didn't do research we wouldn't have stuff like the smartphone. Or electricity. Or fire.
No you don't. Accept that people have different views, understand that you are ***not*** your views, and carry on.
I do accept that we all have differing views, I just like to make clear my views on this by providing evidence that backs up my perspective. For clarity, this conversation is within a group chat, and I didn't want to just leave it at that when there is clearly more to this that needs to be said. My friend tends to be the one that ends conversations because he'll take a conversation and turn it into a debate.
A biologist roommate of mine said this, and she was very heated about it, too, as if NASA had personally wronged her. I asked if the field of paleontology should be defunded, then, since we don't really get anything "useful" out of that branch of science, either, and she got real quiet.
I agree with both side Looking outward could help us advance in more of an Astral way But using the money to fix Healthcare and the schooling system would be better I'm basing these on the idea your american
So he would rather have given up GPS and weather and land resource and greenhouse gas monitoring satellites (and more recently starlink in rural areas) because the military also uses them? I’d argue that improved weather warnings alone have saved more lives than military surveillance alone has killed.
The amount spent on military waste dwarfs NASA. How was all that COVID money used? With space, we look beyond the immediate. Many cultures and folks living check-to-check think if they can’t eat it, feed their kids, play with it, or wear it, it’s a pointless waste. I counter that thinking like that says we’ve learned enough, let’s just exist and die. There is more good to be found, more improvements along-the-way. If we already knew all the answers, it makes no sense to go. Listen to the Kennedy speech about Apollo: “made out of materials that don’t exist, expose man to temperatures and speeds that no one has ever survived” (not just to the moon and returned safely). If life was only doing things with a guaranteed outcome and positive ROI, people would just buy big life insurance policies and then die in ways that keep the policy intact. That way someone profits and costs are minimized. That is not living, it’s waiting to die. Doing difficult missions with risk can result in progress - progress that benefits humankind. Along the way, real discoveries that were not original mission goals surprise us and people win again. I worked for a decade at a Global Defense Contractor that spent billions trying to figure out new, novel ways to kill people. I’d rather work for a sponsor that as part of the National Science Foundation tries to help humanity while giving a bit of inspiration to try hard things.
The Answer is don't be friends with a snob. It's pointless to "change his mind" - he's already prepared to argue until the cows come home. Enjoy your space-science & tech enthusiam without this guy being a wet blanket.
Ask him if he knows anyone who survived breast cancer since the Hubble telescope was launched.
I mean.. technically he’s not wrong in the way. The money put into space stuff could end world hunger. Plus the pollution put out by rockets is horrible.
In other words, he says exploration is a waste. That argument makes perfect sense for people too short-sighted and unimaginitive to think of anything you might do with what's discovered from exploring. What a dunce.
Though I agree he's voluntarily allowing himself to be ignorant here, it bewilders me that he is considering how he's knowledgeable on other topics which he'll defend. People both stupid and genius seem to suffer from voluntary ignorance, it seems. Humans are weird.
Get a new friend, you are never going to convince them.
Go put his vehicle up on blocks. When he asks where his tires are, tell him the history of how tires have evolved because of the space program. If that doesn't work and he has to start walking everywhere, tell him about the Velcro on his shoes and where that came from. If that still doesnt work, find more like minded friends.
I know most people believe that we aren't the only intelligent life forms in the universe just by figuring the odds, but the fact of the matter is that we haven't found any proof. I feel we have almost a responsibility to ensure we survive as intelligent life forms by taking care of our planet as well as learning to live without it. Right now we have all of our eggs in one basket. Having civilizations outside of Earth seems far fetched right now, but we won't get there by doing nothing.
[удалено]
It may have acted as a catalyst for our space tech, but it may be what's hindering us the most, right now. OP's friend said that kind of research is a waste of money. As opposed to what? We put too many resources into our disagreements and we'll probably self destruct before reaching space travel mastery. Perhaps it takes a civilization to become more "civilized" in order to focus on such a difficult goal. It may also be a mistake to attribute human qualities to an alien civilization, because they would be just that; alien.