Warp Drive

[Eudaimonist]

Taxes are the only realistically viable way of funding such a project.

Maybe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So your discretionary money for the month is in hand. The director of NASA comes to ask you for it. At the same time, someone whose house is about to be repossessed comes to ask you for it.

How do you allocate the money?

According to my standard of values. It's possible that I will choose 1) NASA, 2) the guy with the housing issues, 3) someone else, or 4) myself. I can't say in advance without being in the situation and knowing the specifics.

I don't see what your question has to do with anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[46AND2]

It was a rhetorical question.



Still not an answer. There are people here in the U.S. losing their houses ... and they're in good shape compared to people in Greece & Spain ... and they're in good shape compared to people in Syria right now.

So why should those people be giving up their houses for warp drive? How do you think they're going to vote on tax issues? If Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc. etc. wants to pay for this from their personal bank account - great. Go for it. Start a fund drive. Then it's no longer my business.

But given your reaction to a question about your own personal finances, why should even the billionaires react any differently than "that's my business" - even to a request to help someone keep their home.

Watch this video from timestamp 47:37 to 49:16 or so. Neil Degrasse Tyson explains it very well:

Stephen Colbert Interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy - 2010-Jan-29 - YouTube

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

According to my standard of values. It's possible that I will choose 1) NASA, 2) the guy with the housing issues, 3) someone else, or 4) myself. I can't say in advance without being in the situation and knowing the specifics.

I don't see what your question has to do with anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's relevant because with basic science and technology projects on such a scale, the end-point is always far away enough that you can justify siphoning a little of the cash off to help things that have a higher short-term priority. There are always hungry people to feed, homeless people to house, children with leukaemias to cure, veterans to look after, etc. And on a population level, at this point in time no science or technology project can really compete with the emotional pitches used by humanitarian causes, especially when the end goal is 20 or 50 or 100 years away. And then suddenly one day you wake up and realise that you won't ever really finish said science/technology project because all your money has gone to other causes because people essentially come up and ask you why you hate sick kids.

That's not to say that government funding isn't without its flaws; Neil deGrasse Tyson weighed in on this issue as well (at the National Space Symposium, I think); the problem with Obama's plan to get to Mars is that there is no way that it will be even close to be completed in his time in office. Therefore, it'll inevitably be a political issue at the next election, and therefore it'll probably be scrapped because all candidates seem to hate science and technology funding.

 

[razeontherock]

All we need is some "exotic matter", but not nearly as much of it as had been thought before.

Where are the dilithium crystals? I won't believe it til I see the dilithium crystals.

 

[freezerman2000]

It's relevant because with basic science and technology projects on such a scale, the end-point is always far away enough that you can justify siphoning a little of the cash off to help things that have a higher short-term priority. There are always hungry people to feed, homeless people to house, children with leukaemias to cure, veterans to look after, etc. And on a population level, at this point in time no science or technology project can really compete with the emotional pitches used by humanitarian causes, especially when the end goal is 20 or 50 or 100 years away. And then suddenly one day you wake up and realise that you won't ever really finish said science/technology project because all your money has gone to other causes because people essentially come up and ask you why you hate sick kids.

That's not to say that government funding isn't without its flaws; Neil deGrasse Tyson weighed in on this issue as well (at the National Space Symposium, I think); the problem with Obama's plan to get to Mars is that there is no way that it will be even close to be completed in his time in office. Therefore, it'll inevitably be a political issue at the next election, and therefore it'll probably be scrapped because all candidates seem to hate science and technology funding.

How long was it from the time of JFK's "Go to the moon" speech and the actual landing? Close to a decade.
Thankfully,we are not starting from scratch this time!

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

How long was it from the time of JFK's "Go to the moon" speech and the actual landing? Close to a decade.
Thankfully,we are not starting from scratch this time!

Dr. Tyson covered this as well. JFK obviously died, but here's the timeline of Apollo:

Conceived early 1960 (during Eisenhower's presidency)
January 20, 1961 - JFK's inauguration
May 25, 1961 - Speech
July 20, 1969 - Man on the moon

JFK said he was committed to getting man on the moon by the end of the decade. The end of 1969 from the date of his inauguration was just under 9 years. From the date of his speech to the date of the moon landing, it was just over 8 years. The point is, that even though it was 'almost' a decade away, the entire project could have been overseen by just JFK in his terms in office. And in fact, Lyndon Johnson did oversee the entire project as JFK had originally planned. This is vastly different from a second-term President providing a wishy-washy, vague plan to get to Mars over 20 years from now. I hate to sound morbid, but many of the people on this board may not even be alive anymore by the time this is achieved, even if everything goes to plan (as as I pointed out before, this is such a nebulous, far-away project that it's almost inconceivable for this to run under time and under budget).

Personally, I think a much better plan would be to promise a permanent human presence on the moon by the end of the decade (at least by the time his term is over Obama could have laid serious foundations that would be difficult to overturn...unless the superconducting supercollider happens all over again...). Even better would be by the end of his Presidency - if he did that, I would go so far as to say he might be the greatest President of the US ever. Because even if we stop there, I feel we would have achieved something solid and tangible, rather than waiting triple the time for something that may be cancelled at any moment because it's so unwieldy and large.

 

[razeontherock]

In what way is a permanent human presence on the moon desirable? Don't we have enough jails? I think a warp drive would be much more useful.

 

[freezerman2000]

Dr. Tyson covered this as well. JFK obviously died, but here's the timeline of Apollo:

Conceived early 1960 (during Eisenhower's presidency)
January 20, 1961 - JFK's inauguration
May 25, 1961 - Speech
July 20, 1969 - Man on the moon

JFK said he was committed to getting man on the moon by the end of the decade. The end of 1969 from the date of his inauguration was just under 9 years. From the date of his speech to the date of the moon landing, it was just over 8 years. The point is, that even though it was 'almost' a decade away, the entire project could have been overseen by just JFK in his terms in office. And in fact, Lyndon Johnson did oversee the entire project as JFK had originally planned. This is vastly different from a second-term President providing a wishy-washy, vague plan to get to Mars over 20 years from now. I hate to sound morbid, but many of the people on this board may not even be alive anymore by the time this is achieved, even if everything goes to plan (as as I pointed out before, this is such a nebulous, far-away project that it's almost inconceivable for this to run under time and under budget).

Personally, I think a much better plan would be to promise a permanent human presence on the moon by the end of the decade (at least by the time his term is over Obama could have laid serious foundations that would be difficult to overturn...unless the superconducting supercollider happens all over again...). Even better would be by the end of his Presidency - if he did that, I would go so far as to say he might be the greatest President of the US ever. Because even if we stop there, I feel we would have achieved something solid and tangible, rather than waiting triple the time for something that may be cancelled at any moment because it's so unwieldy and large.

The moon would be perfect for a jumping off point to go further into space..one heck of a lot less heavy lifting to do in the long run,plus,the facilities to process the raw materials coming in from the mining ventures in the asteroid belt being there would free up real estate here on terra-firma.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The moon would be perfect for a jumping off point to go further into space..one heck of a lot less heavy lifting to do in the long run,plus,the facilities to process the raw materials coming in from the mining ventures in the asteroid belt being there would free up real estate here on terra-firma.

Exactly.

 

[razeontherock]

And this is less speculative than a warp drive?

Look, if commercial interests wish to make your dream a reality, I have no problem with that. Just leave my tax dollars out of it

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's relevant because with basic science and technology projects on such a scale, the end-point is always far away enough that you can justify siphoning a little of the cash off to help things that have a higher short-term priority.

I've already said that I don't support increasing taxes on this issue. I'm libertarian on tax issues.

I'd personally prefer taxes be lowered dramatically across the board, and eventually I'd like to see the private sector, driven by customers, billionaire visionaries, and/or small donations, to take over space exploration and development completely. No tax input whatsoever.

For now, though, NASA has a vastly smaller tax budget than the billions and billions spent on social programs, the military, interest on the debt, etc. So there are bigger fish to fry at this point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Where are the dilithium crystals? I won't believe it til I see the dilithium crystals.

Yes, we need to obtain the Unobtainium. And there is no guarantee that we will.

However, human beings are a clever species. I mean, we're closing in on creating quantum computers, we've been teleporting subatomic particles, and inventing cloaking devices lately. Even if we can't find the exotic matter, perhaps we can create it or find a substitute.

I only believe in warp drive as a promising concept. Known scientific principles support the idea that it is possible in principle (space can be bent), and the remaining hurdle is a specific resource. That is very encouraging, and we should dare to dream.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

(space can be bent)

You sound like a certain Mr AV: space can get bent, and science can take a hike?



No seriously, interesting stuff here.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I've already said that I don't support increasing taxes on this issue. I'm libertarian on tax issues

I know. But most companies (the likes of IBM and Intel excepted) don't really have the long-term vision to see through a project of this magnitude. Heck, most companies won't last as long as the project to see a man to Mars.

I'd personally prefer taxes be lowered dramatically across the board, and eventually I'd like to see the private sector, driven by customers, billionaire visionaries, and/or small donations, to take over space exploration and development completely. No tax input whatsoever.

For now, though, NASA has a vastly smaller tax budget than the billions and billions spent on social programs, the military, interest on the debt, etc. So there are bigger fish to fry at this point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's not impossible, but I don't think the private sector is able or willing to accept the risk associated with viability studies. The industries that do, in particular the pharmaceutical companies, mitigate the risk by charging exorbitant amounts for the products they do produce. What has already happened so far with exploring LEO, GSO, and HEO are an example of how it's supposed to work - a government agency (NASA) provides the initial research to develop the basic science that allows exploration of a novel environment. Then, the job falls to the private sector to solve the engineering problems necessary to push satellites and passengers into Earth orbit wholesale. I don't think that a private company would have pushed into space on its own - there is simply no incentive to go first, when you can be second.

 

[Resha Caner]

... billionaire visionaries ...

I've got the visionary part, just not the billionaire part. But I'm volunteering. If everyone in the world would just send me $1 ...

Ever read Tocqueville?

 

[florida2]

The story is Science Fiction.
It is fictional but draws on some scientific facts such as there may be
such a person who works on advanced designs at NASA.
But the rest is fiction.

How do you know that?

 

[freezerman2000]

How do you know that?

I was wondering the same thing.