The value of space exploration?

[Allie]

Do you think the amount of money spent on space travel and exploration is justified? Or that space travel is a worthy cause, regardless of the financial and environmental costs?

It seems that such expansive, expensive programs are justified as being of benefit and value to humanity. What are the benefits to humanity, beyond some sort of touchy-feely, humanity coming together, a la 1969? This is a genuine question, rather than just a rhetorical snipe, by the way.

I personally find the financial cost rather disgusting, particularly when there are such huge problems facing us on Earth. The difficulty with this gripe is that eradicating space programs does not go any way at all toward ensuring that any other social or other ills will be addressed, let alone absolved. Beyond that, what of the environmental cost - how is this justified?

I really don't know much about this topic at all, but have never quite understood the reverence NASA and space exploration seem to inspire in people. It's not that I don't find space 'awe-inspiring' or amazing and beautiful or anything. I'm just not so enamoured with the idea of poking around in it just because it's there, with the justification that it will bring human benefits. Perhaps that's just my disinclination toward embracing the pursuit of things for human benefit, regardless of the cost to the things being embraced.

Ideas?

[[deleted user]]

in regards to the space program
i remember gathering in a classroom and watching the first step on the moon
coming from the relative innocence of thought and action prior
it did instill a sense of the remarkable, the almost unbelievably unattainable that is difficult to convey to succeeding generations who were born and raised with space travel as a normal happening
a lot of quantum leaps forward in human consciousness, intelligence and ideas of what could be accomplished came to fruition with the space program
certainly physics, astronomy, mathematics and the sciences and rational scientific thought was given an enormous boost
computers anyone?
of course with the advent of the new, the old gets lost and valuable things get left behind
is it worth it?
i for one think so
the richness of thought, the intelligence of humanity the ambition of a whole generation was stimulated


anyone else?

[Reads with Scotch]

The space program is about resources, and the survival of humanity. It may not seem like it today, or even in 50 years. But believe this, it will ultimately mean the difference between humanity surviving, and humanity dieing. Progress is slow and expensive, but there is progress. The people intertwined with the programs have finally figure out that if they open the program up to private enterprises that things will progress faster. Many of the advancements in space age tech’s have come about in the last 6 years, and well over half of those were due to outside 3rd party developers. Once these tech’s become more common and used more the price will come down.

Every mission, every launched rocket is recorded and analyzed. There are people working on reducing the number one and two problems with the space program.

1) the cost of launching a rocket from the surface,
2) The environmental impact of said launch.

a) Much of the cost of launching a rocket happens in the first 27 seconds after takeoff. That is the massive consumption of costly dirty rocket fuel. So much is needed for two reasons a) atmospheric drag b) escape velocity. Problem “a” is actually the number one reason it so difficult to leave. We can not do anything about escape velocity, but we can do something about “a”

The current idea is to take the problem out of the equation. What? %$## is this guy mad? How can you take atmospheric drag out of the equation? Its air drag. Well the higher you get the less atmospheric drag you have. There are several teams working on a ginormous floating launch pad. Ideas ranging from a solid platform to a massive balloon that would float up to launch altitude then sink down after the rocket is launched. The cost of building such a thing is a lot more cost effective then continuing to launch from the ground. Yes we are talking serious savings here. Less fuel less weight smaller rockets, less time in the atmosphere. It is all good. And it brings down the cost, and increases the amount of cargo we can bring up. Currently (I believe this is the accurate number) the cost to move a single pound into space is somewhere in the ball park of 10, 000 US dollars. Once this “floating” launch pad is made and perfected they estimate that cost would go down to about 500/per pound. HUGE difference no?

I don’t know if this helped you, or was even what you were asking but that’s what I know.

[Not Bill]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. Thanks for your thoughtful reply Nick. Let's not forget, that much of our modern medical tech is derived directly from our space program. Improve the technology while at the same time reduce the waste and stop politicizing the science that drives it. We've lost enough lives already. NASA's viability depends on this.

[Reads with Scotch]

I stumbled across this when I was doing some research for something else. It is long drawn out and full of technical stuff (it is a discussion forum full of physicist) Skim on down to about halfway down the thread to get to the good stuff, the first half is some guy trying to say a Trebuchet will launch spacecraft?&%$$* right.

[[deleted user]]

is there a link nick?
i enjoyed the drag and velocity info above

it's amazing actually to think of the changes since the beginning of the space program and of course all sorts of things were made possible and invented through it
plastics, high tempered glass, electronics, etc.

i wonder if there is a list compiled?

and since we are a book site, does anyone have a good read or two on the topic?

[Reads with Scotch]

Yeah sorry here is the link.


http://forums.seds.org/archive/index....

[[deleted user]]

thanks nick
looks interesting
but i'll have to wait for a day off
brain fried from work
no way i'll understand rocket science tonight ;)

[Reads with Scotch]

The most feasible and stable renewable non-fossil fuel plan is the hydrogen fuel cell. Hmmm Oh yes it was NASA that came up with that. Space tech advances everything, not just traveling to space.

[Reads with Scotch]

I just re-read that and apologize, It sounded kind of hateful and that is not what I was intending.

[Allie]

Well, clearly space programs have enabled numerous scientific breakthroughs. Would I be correct in assuming that they come from working toward launches and space travel, rather than from the space travel itself though? Obviously this is something quite out of my area of comfort and understanding.

Thank you for the comments and links!

[Reads with Scotch]

An over simplified answer is, no. Earth is a noisy place, with a lot of back ground interference. Doing research in space allows a clean slate and a clear picture of the physical universe. Don't make the mistake of downplaying Physics, everything from computers to DVD's are because of physics. Chemistry is even folded into physics once you break it down far enough. Having a clean environment to work is best. So we learn two fold, what it takes to get there, and what it takes to stay there, and then we gain a whole plethora of sidebar knowledge as well.

[[deleted user]]

"space age" materials were developed first for space travel but other uses were found and i beleive early on the big companies that were developing things for the space program were also looking at possible uses not related to space travel
and developed a lot of these into products we use everyday
for instance pyrex, corian, epoxy and polymers (correct me on these folks)
again, i think a list would be fascinating
traveling through space doesn't produce anything except knowledge of the universe, space and the moon so far, mars has been probed and other planets flown by (hubble?)
so i'm not sure i understand the distinction
in addition to space industries cross producing products for commerce
medical experiments have been conducted that have led to advances in medicine
again where's that list!!! i think we would be truely amazed if we started to make the links

[Reads with Scotch]

I don't know of a list, but you have motivated me, I will try and find one tonight and post it.

[Reads with Scotch]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_so...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_so...

[Reads with Scotch]

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/sp...

this site is apparently geared toward children... but sence we are stubbling along inthe dark I figured hell we need to start somewhere.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spins...

This list is also from NASA but it is very technical and not to user friendly... I am going to look for a 3rd party supplier that might have this stuff in lay terms

[Reads with Scotch]

Here are some that i found to be important

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...


http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

This one seems to be more along the lines of a monitoring role.


http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...



this one is really important for heavaly populated areas

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...



And these are just the ones from the 70's I haven't even reached the 80's yet. The site says that about 50 new technologies are invented or improved upon every year by NASA related techs.

Feel free to look around ;)

[Reads with Scotch]

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/spinoff/spini...

This one is really important and has lead to many advancements in clean cheap energy. It is the starting point of hydrogen fuel cells. Bio-fuels my ass, they still burn fossil fuels. Water baby! It is the most abundant resource in the galaxy! On top of that we can "make" water too.

[Not Bill]

Nick you are a font of NASA knowledge. Back in my yoot, I read a good SF novel / story about Earth setting off an intergalactic incident 'cause we employed ships that split water and burned H2 as fuel. The resulting exhaust (water vapor) ended up killing a large portion of a paritcular planets fauna during our explorations there. Turns out the water vapor was their equivalent to dioxin.

[[deleted user]]

toooo coool nick
i just looked at a few
but will take a look at more later
"basically what you're saying"(note the armageddon reference-the bruce willis movie not the biblical one)
that just about everything since the 50's we can thank the space program for?
having grown up in the "space age" i can attest for the fact that the world was a totally different place when i was growing up
the number of inventions and developments coming from the space program is mind-boggling
like i mentioned before, materials alone
we went from cotton, rubber, and metals to things like neoprene, polypropolene, teflon, corian, pyrex, tempered glass, etc. etc.
it's a fascinating subject

[[deleted user]]

you address nick but i thought i'd throw in my thoughts too
it's a difficult thing to argue because there is no real way of knowing
but i think the developments or regression in society would have been totally different without the space program
if we beleive "necessity is the mother of invention" many inventions wouldn't have occurred because they wouldn't have been necessary
also it seems to me that anytime a society pulls away from the predominant direction of technological or even social development it stagnates

it is of course possible that the creativity could have been fostered and developed other things that the focus on space precluded
but what was going to provide that impetus
the new deal was deconstucted nearly as soon as it was put into effect
the will for space was there and/or was created
the will for social programs was a harder sell
i would have preferred more altruistic programs myself but i think the space program was important in the scope of civilization's progress

and i see that i haven't really addressed your energy question

perhaps government understood the enegry crisis that hit us 20 years later but it wasn't common info so absolutely
the fear of and competition with the soviet union absolutely focused our attention

[Not Bill]

Unfortunately, we're nowhere near close to having a true dialogue concerning energy. There's too much in the way of politics and special interests. We have all we need - right now - both in terms of resources and technology - to remove ourselves from being enslaved to the the ME oil tit. We just don't have the balls to make it happen. Had we gone into ANWAR in 2001 as planned, that oil would just about be ready to hit the market. But no... so I really don't pay attention to peoples bitchin' about the price of gas. We made this bed and now we're in it. Snuggle up folks!

[[deleted user]]

well it's a shame that anwar is even on the block but i think as always
the people who govern us are also the people who make obscence amounts of money from selling us gas
therefore there is no will
the oil magnates in the u.s are tied to the oil magnates in the middle east
perhaps saudi arabia has a vested interest in the iraqi war that has a lot more to do with the shared brotherhood to the oil concerns in the u.s. than the shared brotherhood to their fellow arabs
everyone agrees money is the motivation but then want to pretend that the oil moneyed have concern for their countrymen
they don't and they are the ones who've made our bed
what's the point of selling drilling in anwar, or the gulf for that matter when your best buddy and investment partner has enough oil to last for generations
and their competition to the north has been put "offline" and will be for some time
keeping them out of the picture and preventing the soviets from gaining any ground as well

the real problem for all of us bed partners is that cheap environmentally friendly energy will never occur because there is no will for it
i agree we'll keep chasing the oil grail until the kingdom is lost

[Reads with Scotch]

I personally would like to see all of the oil fields in the u.s. opened. Flood the market with product, make it cheap, beyond cheap.

follow my logic here please. If oil becomes uber cheep after10 years of massive profits these oil companies will have to miracle a new cash cow. new age techs to make up for the lost revenue. their "share holders" will demand it. Oil as an energy source is on the out. I know it doesn't seem like it (you will just have to trust me on this, I work for the oil industry, and there is a lot of hub bub going on) but they areas we speak spending a few billion a year trying to develop the next biggest thing. Oil will always be used for something, but have no delusions about it, it is a sinking ship. The ME is kinda a reason not to move on to another energy source. For all of their rhetoric about the west raping them of riches and culture can you postulate about there reaction when we simply stop buying their goods? I assume we will here something along the lines of

"you left us high and dry, now suck on this suicide bomber"

[Shannon]

Moving away from the science and into a more, ah, ethical argument, my only real concern with space travel/exploration etc. is that we don't really deserve another planet when we can't even take care of this one.

The dream of finding somewhere else to live or of creating a habital environment elsewhere encourages us to exhaust this planet - it doesn't even have to be a feasible dream, but it's true that most people don't like to change the way they do things, they simply wait for someone, some mysterious figure, to create a solution for them - like a home on another planet, or some nifty way of absorbing plastic, or ending our fuel woes. This blase attitude, the lack of responsibility, is my main gripe with science fiction.

Remember those silly movies like Independence Day etc., where aliens come to take over the Earth because they've used up all the resources on their own planet and need somewhere else to live? That's us. Down to a T. It's interesting how innocent we still think of ourselves.

[Reads with Scotch]

Type 1 civilization: Those that harvest planetary power, utilizing all the sunlight that strikes their planet. They can, perhaps, harness the power of volcanoes, manipulate the weather, control earthquakes, and build cities on the oceans. All planetary power is with in their control.

Type 2 civilization: Those that can utilize the total power of their sun, making them 10 billion times more powerful then a type 1 civilization. The Federation in Star Trek is a type 2 civilization. A type 2 civilization in a sense, is immortal; nothing known to science, such as ice ages, meteor impacts, or even supernovae, can destroy it. (In the event their mother star is about to explode they can just move to another system, perhaps even move their planet.)

Type 3 civilization: Those that can utilize the power of an entire galaxy. They are 10 billion times more powerful then a type 2 civilization. The Borg in Star Trek, the Empire in Star Wars, and the galactic civilization in Asimov’s Foundation series correspond to a type 3 civilization. They have colonized entire star systems and can exploit the black hole at the center of their galaxy. They freely roam the galaxy.


Needless to say we are a class 0 civilization. Sci-Fi movies such as Independence day were fun entertainment, but to say that once our tech allows us to travel the stars we would ruin every planet we came across is just absurd.

We are so destructive because we are technological morons, however much we may praise our own genus the truth is we are pretty daft. maybe in 100 years we will fit your ethical preferences.

As far as "changing our ways" I will do that once there is something to change to. All these environmental options don't solve anything, the green living crowd doesn't solve anything, it doesn't even change anything. Not because more people do do it,but because "we" are not the problem.

Solar flares, and Volcanoes.

[Not Bill]

Again...thanks Nick. All their planets are belong to us! bwahahahahaha!

[Reads with Scotch]

and the room goes silent... Was my post harsh? I know I can come off as mean sometimes, I wasn't trying to. :(

[Not Bill]

No Nick...you were on the money. Some folks view truth as harsh. They opt for "truthiness" instead. I'm beginning to see that this group wasn't about thinking at all....more like one big, padded echo chamber of squishy logic. As long as everyone got along and thought the same way - all was kewl. feh.

[Allie]

I don't think that's necessarily right, Bill. I'm not averse to thinking, or having my ideas challenged from whatever direction. I like it. But personally, I prefer to remain silent when I have nothing worthwhile to contribute rather than dogmatically adhere to any particular arguments, or keep arguing a point for the sake of it, or for post counts, etc. I haven't posted in this thread because I have nothing worthwhile to contribute. I prefer to read it. Not contributing doesn't mean that I shut myself off and sit in the corner with my fingers in my ears.

I'm sure your comment was a general one, rather than being directed at anybody in particular. My own take is that your reading of silence isn't necessarily on target.

[Shannon]

I agree with Allie.

Personally, I opt out of a discussion when I can see it's not going to be a discussion but rather a "no, I'm right, you shut up" kind of thing. So I have an anthropological take on things as opposed to Nick's "science" one - does that make mine less valid? Am I "off the money" simply because you like someone else's idea better?

I feel like I've walked into a boy's club - this group wasn't designed to brow-beat people into silence or ridicule them if you disagree. It was created to share ideas and perspectives etc.

[Reads with Scotch]

I didn't think I was brow beating. Also I don't think I was being hostile with my "science". I was making a point that we are destructive and wasteful because we are ignorant. Not because we are mean spirited, or would rather build an armada of space ships (thus depleting our resources) to sail around the galaxy and pillage other civilizations. I am sorry if I am not following your logic here.

The topic of this thread is "The value of space exploration" And I think I have made my case that it has improved our lives and has been a great catalyst for spin off techs that have been used in all industries including environmental sciences.

P.S. Why was science referred to in a negative way Shannon?

[Shannon]

P.S. Why was science referred to in a negative way Shannon?

Sorry, I was being snarky. Yes guilty as charged. I guess being dismissed off-hand brings out that side of me. And I wasn't referring to you about the brow-beating, as such, it was more a general comment.

we are destructive and wasteful because we are ignorant.

I definitely agree with you there, and I find space exploration fascinating, and I'd love it if we had the technology to avoid polution etc., but what I was talking about was another side of its "value": we have the potential for greatness, sure, but we can also get carried away by these glorious visions of our future, and I do think - and see, every day - that people don't give a shit about the now. I don't have much liking for my own species to be honest, we're just not all that deserving of respect in general. The exceptions don't quite make up for it.

You were saying that in the future these problems will be solved because we'll have the technology to solve them, but I'm saying that what we need first of all is a bit of humility, some respect, and to face the consequences of our greed now, rather than dismiss and ignore it as someone else's problem. Obviously, Nick, we disagree, but mostly I think we just don't understand each other's perspectives very well.

You said: All these environmental options don't solve anything, the green living crowd doesn't solve anything, it doesn't even change anything. Not because more people do do it, but because "we" are not the problem.

I'm curious about that last part: if "we" aren't the problem, what is?

[Reads with Scotch]

Personally, I believe, it has to do with venting volcanoes, global "wobble", and surface activity of the sun. If our current pollutants were increased exponentially over the next 50 years then I think we would have an effect. My biggest problem with the Hype is that the people making the soap box speeches are not scientists. They are researchers that are not following the scientific process.

In Short they look at one piece of a puzzle and then flop around screaming whistling and doing the happy dance, about seeing the whole picture. It is inaccurate.

I truly believe we DO need to advance our energy technology, But we don't have anything economical today to do that. Maybe in 10 years but not today.

Being economical is important; I see this point dismissed a lot. The truth is, if we all jump over to an alternate energy source that is not economical we are setting ourselves up for a pretty rough future.

Also I do not agree with the multiple answer solutions. In order for an alternate energy source to be successful it will need to be mainstreamed, we can do that if manufacture "a" operates off of Bio-fuel, and Manufacturer "b" operates off of Hydrogen, and manufacture "c" Uses such and such. It would be mayhem. Standardization it the key for forward progress. Everyone on the same page moving in the same direction (like oil){this does not go for power plants, anything that can generate a kilowatt is fair game}

[Not Bill]

Hi All....now THAT'S a discussion. Now Nick, careful - you're making sense. I'm always amazed at the global warming crowd. How many times have I (and you perhaps?) been labeled a "denier" ooooooooooooh...I'm right up there with holocaust "deniers". It actually makes me laugh. Volcanoes, sunspot cycles, ocean temperature measurement. This is the real science - and the enviro-crowd doesn't like it one bit. That doesn't matter, because in the end it is science. We've all a long way to go on this. Signing off on poorly crafted international agreements that give a pass to the worst polluters on the planet is not going to solve anything. Or maybe...that isn't the real agenda. Hard to know. Shannon...that is the crux of the problem. I laugh when I hear that global warming is a "slam dunk". We don't even really know what we're looking at. What is needed is rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Let the facts speak, and act accordingly. Now...if that makes me a "poopy head proxy", well then I'm guilty. I will say I'm glad to see someone here entertain the "science" of what it is we're trying to ascertain. And in a sense, that ties us back to the subject of the thread. I absolutely believe it is in our nature, as humans, to question, explore and expand our knowledge. When that is taken from us, we as sentient beings literally rot. That's what I see as really having killed the Soviet Union. I don't want to see that happen here (the US). The current politicization of science, via the global warming argument, is setting a very dangerous precedant. Space exploration is the ultimate embodiment of that desire to explore - thought there is a definite need to raise ocean exploration to nearly the same level. That...is perhaps left to another thread.

[Shannon]

if we all jump over to an alternate energy source that is not economical we are setting ourselves up for a pretty rough future.

Absolutely. Ethanol, for instance, is a stupid waste of time and just as damaging and not feasible. What are we supposed to eat?

Not Bill, you're arguments seem based on selective reading and selective listening. If you're open to another perspective, might I suggest to you and Nick that you read Heat by George Monbiot? There's a fascinating chapter on what's behind the anti-climate change argument, and if you think there's no science in the debate this book will definitely prove you wrong. The ability to be able to change one's mind is not a weakness, you know.

The current politicization of science, via the global warming argument, is setting a very dangerous precedant.

Is accountability such a scary thing? Responsibility? Are you really that important?

My biggest problem with the Hype is that the people making the soap box speeches are not scientists.

Uh, yes they are. My biggest problem with the "deniers", for want of a better word, is that the people making those soap box speeches aren't scientists, and more to the point, are being paid by some very hefty companies with a lot to lose. Look behind every prominent denier for the money and you'll find it.

The planet is like your house: would you let it fall down around your ears, the plaster cracking, the pipes bursting, the ceilings caving in. Why are we so willing to spend money on making our own houses secure and strong and safe but not the planet? because our houses are investments, they are worth money. The funny thing is, there's plenty of money to be made in stopping or slowing down climate change, whatever the causes are. Some companies can already see that, and those are the ones that'll make it in the long term.

[Allie]

Is accountability such a scary thing? Responsibility? Are you really that important?
I'm agreeing with Shannon again.

Regardless of whether you 'deny' or challenge (or whatever word you want to use) the science behind climate change, or the way that it is presented etc, I think there is a definite need and responsiblity for human kind to seek to diminish the impact that we make. On earth (I think we're almost too late here), on the atmosphere, beyond, etc.

Regardless of the extent to which you consider human impact to have contributed to global warming, isn't minimising our impact a desirable thing to work towards? Sure, volcanic activity, natural climate cycles, etc definitely contribute to the state of the atmosphere. It doesn't mean that we don't also contribute, and that just because we don't do as much damage as some circles would have you believe (if this is what you want to argue), we ought to sit back and effectively go, hey, it's not just OUR fault.

[Reads with Scotch]

I am all for a national agenda on energy reform. What I am against is economical environmental regulations that will seriously hurt our already beat up economy. I think we should really push Hydrogen fuel cells. With enough emphasis on it we could knock out the kinks and start working on mainstream infrastructure within 10 years. 20 years from now we could be clean green and cheap. With these 3 traits the hydrogen fuel cell technology could change the global economy. We could spread cheap abundant energy around the world, think of all those developing nations that would no longer have to waste their money on oil. IMO Hydrogen is our best bet. It is the only single shot source of energy we have on the books today that can fulfill our energy demands of today and tomorrow. And it is a huge added bonus that it is versatile and can be utilized in many fashions.

[Not Bill]

Shannon...please do tell to what science should be accountable to - the State perhaps? Sounds so very....Soviet. You really think, that a single chapter is going to prove me wrong or change my mind? You don't think too much of me do you? No prob, I'm new here. Also...let's be clear on some verbage here. It's not climate change we're arguing here..it's that human activity has caused a sudden and critical change in Earth's climate. And fer cryin' out loud...how many soap box speeches have we endured by the likes of Gore, DiCapprio, Beatty, et all regarding this? Yes...esteemed scientists all. When Gore ever agrees to finally sit down and personally debate the subject that is now his life's work, then maybe I'll be impressed. I'm not going to hold my breath. But...at least you've peaked my interest. I'll look up this book you mention. And...there's a better term than "denier". It's "skeptic".

[Not Bill]

ya know what Shannon...I admit..I'm a denier. Guilty as charged. I've got nothing to back my position up. You win. How was I so stupid? Anyway...if you live near the coast....move. I know I am. See ya!

[Allie]

You really think, that a single chapter is going to prove me wrong or change my mind? You don't think too much of me do you? No prob, I'm new here.

Urgh, I cringe when I read this kind of thing. It's so ridiculous, no wonder nobody wants to actually debate here. Your tone is so harsh and patronising, I can't be bothered even attempting an online 'discussion' with you in it. Which I'm sure will lead to me being dismissed as a dumbfuck, bleeding heart liberal with no sense or capacity for critical analysis. So be it, this is an unpleasant waste of time.

[Shannon]

how many soap box speeches have we endured by the likes of Gore, DiCapprio, Beatty, et all regarding this? Yes...esteemed scientists all.

Ah, Not Bill, celebrities are in the best position to draw attention to such things. When they go to places in desperate need of help in terms of food, security, shelter etc., do you also have a go at them for that? Scientists aren't the best public speakers, and don't know how to reach people at an emotional level. I know people who didn't think seriously about the issue until they heard it from Oprah's mouth - as much as that annoys me, I'm glad that they're listening to someone. Of course Oprah's not a scientist, but as I said before, there are very few scientists who aren't saying we need to change the way we do things or the Earth's headed for some serious shit. It's pretty much an established thing now.

[Allie]

Ah, Not Bill, celebrities are in the best position to draw attention to such things. When they go to places in desperate need of help in terms of food, security, shelter etc., do you also have a go at them for that? Scientists aren't the best public speakers, and don't know how to reach people at an emotional level.

Exactly. Horses for courses. The same things goes for people like UN Goodwill Ambassadors- sometimes a bit of celebrity can put something in the public domain and create dialogue and foster interest. Furthermore, it's not even necessarily what they say exactly, but that something is being said about an issue, from which understanding and debate can be built upon. It doesn't always work, or work for the best, but not everybody will ever agree on what is the best way to tackle issues and what solutions are best. The key is to put them on the agenda.

As for Charly's comments, I completely agree. I frequently change my opinions on issues after reading more about them, and would hate to be the kind of person who'd refuse to read anything because it's written by 'the other side' or might sway me a bit. Having concrete ideas on things scares me in myself as well as other people. And yeah, I love to read.

[Shannon]

I frequently change my opinions on issues after reading more about them, and would hate to be the kind of person who'd refuse to read anything because it's written by 'the other side' or might sway me a bit. Having concrete ideas on things scares me in myself as well as other people. And yeah, I love to read.

I'm the same way Allie. I don't think I could ever say - or want to - that I know all I need to know about a given topic, and I love reading about things from someone else's perspective.

[Not Bill]

Monbiot....Monbiot....hmmmmm seems I've heard his name in the news. Oh right.....George Monbiot, tried to make a citizens arrest of John Boltonn today. Monbiot, calumnist, radical activist, whose name was the basis for today's "moonbat". I have to admit too that I've changed my mind based on things I've read. I'll hazard to wager though, that Monbiot's arguments will prove lacking. And just to be clear, when I mention climate change / global warming - I speak of the anthroprogenic variety. Climate change? You betcha - always has, always will. Man made global warming? Not convinced - yet. Can we / should we change consumption practices? Absolutely - let's just not fool ourselves on what we're able to achieve, or what is inevitible.

Shannon - when you say there are few scientists who aren't speaking out - there maybe an explanation you might not have considered. 1st off - there are plenty of pretty ballsy scientists who'll tell anyone who's listening that the whole climate change panic is rubbish. Enough to call into question the current "consensus". However, here are many others, who are afraid to speak out because they feel threatened or have been threatened with political backlash. Grant money....always follow the money.

Wanting to reach out on an emotional level is all well and good. But when it comes to science, I'll stick with the science. And as of today, the science has not been settled - for me in any respects. I think I'll keep this thread....and reread it in 30 years. That should prove fascinating.

[Shannon]

You make some good points Not Bill. What's this about Monbiot trying to make a citizen's arrest?? Dare I ask who John Boltonn is? To my shame I no longer read the paper every day (no time, and I can't justify throwing away so much paper every day), though I don't suppose it even made it into the mainstream news. It sounds like the kind of thing Michael Moore would do though.

You're a rare breed then, unreachable on an emotional level. But it's not always good, that we listen and follow emotionally as much as we do. It's too easy to incite people into violence that way... Yet you could also argue that our emotions are part of what makes us human? There are lots of sci-fi books where the aliens are emotionless - thus more advanced, because not held back by their feelings etc., but also cold. Of course, anyone with a pet knows that we aren't the only animal species to feel :)

[Reads with Scotch]

Perhaps if we turned the conversation back to the value of space exploration. I think it is fair to say the 4 of us have 2 different opinions on climate change.