After reading all the comments on space exploration, it is interesting to note the different view points our readers share. It seems that people need to see the direct correlation on how it will benefit society (eg. military, monetary, pride, etc.) I have heard the argument that the financial resources allocated to NASA should be given to AIDS relief, poverty and education. I believe that those issues deserve immediate attention, but if we slowly disband the Space Agency, then we are killing an inherent part of us: our nature to explore new frontiers, understand nature, satisfy curiosity.

A wonderful quote: It’s human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. Exploration is not a choice, really; it’s an imperative. – Michael Collins, Gemini and Apollo astronaut.

Although I am just a graduate student, I have (briefly) been given the opportunity to see the beauty of space exploration. The ultimate overall goal is quite pure spiritually. Well, back to work. Talk to you soon, Manish

Sex and romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail missions to Mars and should therefore be studied by NASA, warns a top-level panel of US researchers. NASA plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2018 and later on to Mars. But a round-trip mission to the Red Planet would probably last at least 30 months and carry six to eight people. That would be a hotbed for intense crew relationships, says a report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). “With the prospect of a very long-term mission, it’s hard to ignore the question of sexuality,” says Lawrence Palinkas, a medical anthropologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, an author of the report. It reviewed NASA’s plans for research to keep astronauts safe and healthy in space – but the plans make no mention of sexual issues in spaceflight.

You need to get people off this planet for those reasons; right now we’re the equivalent of the inhabitants of some tiny overpopulated (and conflict-ridden) island in the middle of the Pacific, with the rest of the world uninhabited (by Man anyway) and almost completely unexplored.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

Let us agree to disagree on the importance of exploration and discovery for its own sake.

Again – you’re misunderstanding me. I have no problem with exploration and discovery for its own sake. Some of the best things we enjoy in life are due to the result of dreamers who channelled their wildest dreams into reality.

My only disagreement is regarding that the State should support these dreamers. On that, let’s agree to disagree.

M. Nam

“Did you mean disingenuous? Man, that’s Freudian ”

Thanks, I meant disingenuous rather than ingenuous in terms of Abhi’s calculations. It was a Freudian slip. That is how any scientific work done, you reduce it to the simplest form while still maintaining the basic elements, and then apply corrections, and how much your analysis differs.

Let us agree to disagree on the importance of exploration and discovery for its own sake.

for some of the explorers – it was pure human inquiry and discovery.

Then, wouldn’t it be only fair for the taxpayer to insist that these explorers fund their fantasies on their own?

M. Nam

Did you mean disingenuous? Man, that’s Freudian

That is very true. However, there are two important concepts in physical sciences and mathematics: a) zero-order analysis (or first-order), and b) back of the envelope calculations.

On zero-order analysis (or first order), Abhi is correct. True, he did not apply all the corrections – which were rightfully so, pointed out by Vinod.

However, the conclusions were not different, and therefore, his analysis is not ingenious. If he ignores the corrections, to get different conclusion, then it is.

The analogy I have used before was to compare NASA expenditures to military expenditures. Letting people know that B-2s are 2 Billion each, compared to NASA’s 14 Billion annual budget is an example of this. I have never had occasion to go around explicitly stating that “the Apollo program costs X number of B-2s,” where I witheld inflation effects. So no, I don’t make a habit out of it.

1) I do not think that responding to a fallacy with another fallacy is generally helpful, particularly for a scientist 2) As I pointed out in my post, I inferred from your first post that you had used this incorrect analogy before AND were aware that it was incorrect. That is what bothers me