Flying tonight!
- Thread starter pwhole
- Start date
While I do have some sympathy for that point of view, the real obscene waste is the money and resources spent on armaments. If we didn't want to make 'bigger and better bombs/guns/bullets' (trebuchets, crossbows etc. ? it's not a modern phnomenon) all the time, then there's be loads of money left over for space exploration and fundamental science research.
SamT
Moderator
Totally agree - wouldn't it be nice if schools and hospitals had all the money they needed and the army had to organise jumble sales and fun runs to raise cash for their land mines, scatter bombs and sniper rifles.
(That said, speaking to someone in the military who said that there was genuine concern about the current cuts to the army, and that there are genuine threats lurking out there in the world that could see the UK attacked/invaded whatever, should we not have a suitably serious deterrent capability.)
Farting about with drones on Mars (and the looming space tourism industry) threatens my nice white middleclass existence through potential global warming consequences , so its cessation would be a positive thing.
Lack of a deterrent military capability threatens my nice white middleclass existence through potential murderous intent of other nations. So, I concede a necessary evil.
(That said, speaking to someone in the military who said that there was genuine concern about the current cuts to the army, and that there are genuine threats lurking out there in the world that could see the UK attacked/invaded whatever, should we not have a suitably serious deterrent capability.)
Farting about with drones on Mars (and the looming space tourism industry) threatens my nice white middleclass existence through potential global warming consequences , so its cessation would be a positive thing.
Lack of a deterrent military capability threatens my nice white middleclass existence through potential murderous intent of other nations. So, I concede a necessary evil.
& a lot of defence spending pays UK wages, as well as allowing local companies to develop products that are sold elsewhere in world, so in monetary terms there wouldn't be that great a net gain for the government in stopping it (although there would be in humanitarian - if you could persuade everybody else as well !)
2xw
Active member
Probably important to note that the money isn't being shot at mars to burn up in a fiery ball - that's employing scientists and engineers as well as contractors, firms associated etc.
And it's not actually that expensive. Less than we are spending on potholes and less than half the amount Unilever paid out in dividends last year. In the UK, if we spent on space what we spent on chocolate bars we could have 10 rovers a year.
And it's not actually that expensive. Less than we are spending on potholes and less than half the amount Unilever paid out in dividends last year. In the UK, if we spent on space what we spent on chocolate bars we could have 10 rovers a year.
ZombieCake
Well-known member
I'd gladly eat more chocolate if it aided space travel.
I personally think more should be effectively spent on space travel, research, and exploration, rather than sliced off as direct profits for large corporations and fees for career lobbyists. I thought SpaceX getting the moon landing deal was rather amusing.
There's so much out more there and so much that we don't know. There's bound to be positive spin offs for other areas too.
Now if they can pilot the space drone into a Martian cave then that would indeed be a thing.
sinker
New member
ZombieCake said:
Just think how much money we could invest into science and exploration, not to mention feeding and caring for people, if we just cancelled the Trident programme and it's replacement.
https://cnduk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/People-not-Trident-2016.pdf
As if ?205Bn is not already an obscene enough amount of money, as with the way of all things government / military, this will go through the roof. Add 50% as a starter. ?13Bn decommissioning??! FFS don't build it in the first place.
Obscene, criminal and heartbreaking.
Hey, I've gone properly OFF TOPIC now; apologies
pwhole
Well-known member
If the UN change the regs on mining the moon, there's a shitload of titanium up there that would make a lot of money for everyone, and a lot of spaceships. There are massive lava tubes big enough to seal and construct habitats inside. I've always been dubious about the 'either/or' model for funding space exploration - there's plenty of money available for it, and removing poverty on earth won't be achieved by supermarkets or holidays or televised football but by high-tech industries writ large, and quality employment increased across the board - especially in space tech.
And agreed, vanity nuclear weapons projects are so laughable a concept now that any world leader even suggesting them should be removed from office for being a fuckwit. That's about half of them. And there's your budget and your rocket and guidance technology, already developed, paid for and effective. I hate to sound like a hippie, but violence and warfare are basically an embarrassment to the species now and we need to get our shit together and fast. The world leaders who advocate this nonsense know their days are numbered and they're starting to sweat. The whole world is watching, to quote a popular historical phrase.
And agreed, vanity nuclear weapons projects are so laughable a concept now that any world leader even suggesting them should be removed from office for being a fuckwit. That's about half of them. And there's your budget and your rocket and guidance technology, already developed, paid for and effective. I hate to sound like a hippie, but violence and warfare are basically an embarrassment to the species now and we need to get our shit together and fast. The world leaders who advocate this nonsense know their days are numbered and they're starting to sweat. The whole world is watching, to quote a popular historical phrase.
pwhole
Well-known member
They're all also petrified of the concept of giving their citizens money, even though they know that citizens in poverty are the biggest drag on their societies developing. If people are better off, maybe they won't need them any more. In many ways it seems the public are now way ahead of their leaders, which is an interesting concept, if a little scary. Most development, be it technical, social, whatever, has followed an exponential curve since around 2000BC, and it gets ever nearer to vertical, so each change happens faster than the last.
