With the shuttle program coming to an end.

Not that KIRK's drivel has any merit, but the US isn't the only country with a space program so I'm not talking solely about them. This applies as much to the ESA, of which my country is a member.

Really? What opinion's have I been throwing around about Europe? You've used that excuse before TheBigGovernmentDefender. So put up or shut mother fucker.

One thing is for sure, this is about the US's space program. Last I checked, Ireland doesn't have one. So Prick, shut the fuck up about how my country spends my money.

I must say, that if we restrict people to discussing only their country this place will get pretty dull fast.

What's a human life worth? Steve Jobs got a liver transplant a few years back, and the technology used in that is related to the space program (as well as everything Apple sells). What's Jobs worth these days? A couple billion at least. Apple's market value is in the hundreds of billions. What's the value of the ultralight materials now being used to make cars safer? The long life battery technology that goes into everything from hybrid cars to pacemakers?

Nope. I'm not being flip at here, but stop and think about just the flame retardant gear for a moment. The Apollo fire was a national tragedy, as was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. Note the differences between the two. After the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, people said, "We've got to improve factory working conditions and ensure that people can get out of a building in case of a fire." Nobody looked at working at making flame retardant clothing in the wake of the fire, though. Then, 18 years before the Apollo 1 fire, there was the Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire. No big push for flame retardant materials after that.

It took the conditions of the Apollo 1 fire (trapped in a small space, with no hope of escape), along with a concentration of highly educated individuals working on the same project to say, "Hey! You know what? We've got to develop flame retardant materials! There's just no other way about it!"

The space program (like military programs) are unique in that the technologies developed for those programs rapidly expands to fields far outside of their origin. Its rare, for example, for a medical research program to develop a whole new level of computer technology from scratch, and then have that technology expand into other fields. What almost always happens is that the medical field scans the computer industry, takes what's already there, and tries to adapt it for its needs. Or, it waits for that technology to be developed by "somebody." Medical technology is important, but investments there don't help us develop alternative energy sources. Investments in the military and the space program do lead (and in the case of the space program, sooner, rather than later) to the development of alternative energy sources. And unlike investments in the military, investments in the space program aren't geared to developing better ways of killing people or fixing up people so that they can go back out and kill more people.

And if it weren't for that high-tech industry, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation now. And many of us might not even be alive.

I have no problem with funding social programs, I have no problem funding military programs, I have no problem with funding the space program.

You might be right.

They were still doubting the Wrights after their second flight.

Heck, for nearly 50 years after their first flight, the Wright brothers plane was in Europe because the US didn't agree that they were the first.

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?p=2160811#post2160811
http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=69085&highlight=ireland
http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=83450&highlight=ireland
http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2067374&postcount=1
http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2052181&postcount=11

My favorite is this though.

http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1753049&postcount=44

Ireland went bankrupt three years later. You're right Kirk, it is a perfect example of what low taxes and limited interference can produce.

This one is pretty good though too.

Now scurry away like the little hypocritical bitch that you are.

I wish the United States would simply commit itself to spending O.25% of its GDP each year on space exploration.

Just ONE QUARTER of one percent..

Surely our nation could afford that.

While it isn't much of GDP it would be enough for two long duration missions to the moon each year. A manned missions to Mars every 26 months. Half a dozen manned flights to the ISS. Serious work on advanced nuclear propulsion systems and on advanced launch systems. And still be enough to launch at least two advanced unmanned spaceprobes annually.

I wouldn't be so sure. Currently NASA's budget is $19 billion, 0.25% of GDP would be about $37-$38 billion. You'd effectively double the budget of NASA, but I'm not sure it'd be enough to do what you propose.

Vast amounts of NASAs budget right now is just maintaining infrastructure and workforce.

That same basic workforce and infrastructure can support manned lunar and Mars programs with few changes.

Remember, the vast majority of the costs of the original Apollo program was building the immense Kennedy Space Center infrastructure that did not exist when the Apollo program was approved (such as the massive Vertical Assembly Building).

I am impressed. Good job but it is kind of interesting that my posts referenced the US. Don't let that stop you though TheBigGovernmentDefender.

2008... ROFLMAO

Shrug, I'm all for a larger budget for NASA. There is a finite quantity of resources on this rock and we need to have infrastructure and technology in place to acquire resources from other worlds.