THE "MOON"...Ah, the moon!!!

[zip]

ok i'll spell it out the question at your middle school level...how does going to the moon or mars or any other planet help solve the problems that we face today on planet earth ranging from global warming to diseases to famine to you name it?

if you still don't understand my question after this then I'm afraid you have a much bigger problem called an "attention deficit disorder" that you should be worrying about...hey that too perhaps could've been cured with that rs 900 million.

I asked whats the meaning of 'achievement in your dictionary ?

 

[Cookie Monster]

In general.

After all, one could seek an equivalent example of spending billions on nuclear weapons while a good portion of the population is poor, and many similar instances.

I agree with that too. It is a waste to spend billions on nuclear weapons when a good portion of the population is poor. However in that case sometimes there is no choice.

If u take a country like Switzerland or Costa Rica...that don't face an existential threat...if they spent all that money to develop nuclear weapons then surely it's a waste. If u take a country like Pakistan...with the history of animosity and wars fought with India...and an active source of contention(Kashmir)...
...while facing a bigger enemy that has a numbers advantage conventionally...nuclear weapons become a necessity...to act as a deterrent. It is still a waste of money...but what's the alternative? To be at the mercy of ur enemy? Hope that they won't attack and try to take back Kashmir? Hope that they won't take ur territory? In that case u r stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[GumNaam]

You mean to say that, we should only spend that amount in finding cure for Alzheimer's and not try to find a cure for cancer or something else?

There are certain problems since the evolution of human beings, like poverty or healthcare.. and will remain there in future too ... So you mean to say that modern technology should not have been developed instead the money would have been donated to a few poor or sick people. Weird logic... Isn't it? How long will that sustain them ?

India shouldn't have adopted Computers in the early eighties, because India was a poor country. And computers were pretty damn expensive back in those days. Instead India should have taken loans and distributed to poor peoples which would have sustained them for a while. But then Indians are not morons of the highest order. Instead we adopted the computer technology, educated our masses, and look now it provides employment to millions, rakes in billions of dollars in earnings. The taxes of those same employed people of the industry helps the govt to bring more people out of poverty each year. But then this economic cycle seems to be beyond your level of understanding.

You can tell you friend that a lot more is being spend on research in medicine in India than the Space Program. Whole of India's Space Program is aimed to develop modern technology in-house , which will help to provide employment to many more Indians. There are related industries that manufacture components for space missions, then there are universities that do the research for space missions, then there are end users of products of space missions like weather forecast, or soil and mineral research, communications, defence, navigation, launching satellites for others and millions of other things that have come out India's space mission.

Do you know that the one of the payload of Chandrayaan2 is a 30cm resolution optical telescope. Can you envisage it's usage if used in an earth orbit? It's a high resolution keyhole satellite which can see a 30 cm large object from space. Now you see the benefit of developing something like a that? India did loose a Rover and a lander but then you have no idea about how many technologies India validated even with this failed mission.

Now that's beyond your understanding...

is he really that gullible? who said don't adopt computer technology? but do you see the difference between adopting computer techologies and utilizing them cure deseases verses going to the moon? alzheimer's was an example of my coworker genius, using that as a counter argument is just beneath me to even respond to since I made it abundantly clear that it was an EXAMPLE! you have provided ZERO credible arguments with regards to how going to the moon helps the common man...to bring the space program in overall just exposes your fragile arguments as I never said anything about any country's "space programs" and I made it loud & clear that I am strictly talking about going to other planetary bodies with is just a PART of space programs and a very expensive one. I never said anything against satellites or even the space station...

 

[VCheng]

I agree with that too. It is a waste to spend billions on nuclear weapons when a good portion of the population is poor. However in that case sometimes there is no choice.

If u take a country like Switzerland or Costa Rica...that don't face an existential threat...if they spent all that money to develop nuclear weapons then surely it's a waste. If u take a country like Pakistan...with the history of animosity and wars fought with India...and an active source of contention(Kashmir)...
...while facing a bigger enemy that has a numbers advantage conventionally...nuclear weapons become a necessity...to act as a deterrent. It is still a waste of money...but what's the alternative? To be at the mercy of ur enemy? Hope that they won't attack and try to take back Kashmir? Hope that they won't take ur territory? In that case u r stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So a waste of money can be justified in some cases but not others? If that is the case, then it becomes merely a matter of opinion, and nations can spend their resources on whatever serves their national interests as best as they can determine them.

 

[GumNaam]

But earlier you said it is obligatory only for ones who can afford it ..Then why a poor country should spend billions of rs for subsidy rather than helping poor public ..

the government helps people meet their religious goal verses the government spends billions on crashing on the moon that helps NO one meet ANY need...at least the former is helping the people fulfill a need while the latter helps NO one fulfill ANY need.

see how a slippery indian has a tendency to slip on himself? oh indiots...too smart for their own good!

 

[Jungibaaz]

Only scientifically illiterate people would be mocking ISRO as we are, given the state we are in especially. Sadly that includes relevant ministers too, so woeful is our plight.

As for what the benefits of space exploration are, please do a few quick google searches and see for yourself. As a general rule, space technology is always cutting edge, and new technologies always trickle out from their cutting edge form to complement technical developments in consumer applications, medicine, engineering and IT. Cutting edge science from NASA, the CERN and even the US DoD are partly responsible for the internet and a giant proportion of other related technologies we use today.

 

[Cookie Monster]

So a waste of money can be justified in some cases but not others? If that is the case, then it becomes merely a matter of opinion, and nations can spend their resources on whatever serves their national interests as best as they can determine them.

Not really...one is to ensure ur safety...as I mentioned before(the existential threat part in my previous post). The other(space exploration) isnt to ensure ur safety. Perhaps u r thinking that I'm justifying it for Pak and criticizing India...I'm not.

If we just take Pak for example...
- Billions spent on nukes...yes it can be spent to uplift ppl out of poverty but what good would that be if there was no more Pakistan?
- Billions spent on a space program (theoretical scenario)...yes it can be spent to uplift ppl out of poverty and the repercussions would be not making the progress that would be made with space exploration...that's something u can live with. It doesn't come at the cost of ur own safety.

 

[zip]

the government helps people meet their religious goal verses the government spends billions on crashing on the moon that helps NO one meet ANY need...at least the former is helping the people fulfill a need while the latter helps NO one fulfill ANY need.

see how a slippery indian has a tendency to slip on himself? oh indiots...too smart for their own good!

I think you should know the difference between science and technology ..the goal of scienceis the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake while the goal of technology is to create products that solve problems and improve human life..In this thread you are mixing it like a kid..

 

[GumNaam]

I think you should know the difference between science and technology ..the goal of scienceis the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake while the goal of technology is to create products that solve problems and improve human life..In this thread you are mixing it like a kid..

you answered your own question WHILE contradicting yourself. all that money spent on developing "technology" to go to the moon, be it 50 years ago or 2 weeks ago, how does it help solve problems and improve human life? Answer just that simple question...

 

[VCheng]

Not really...one is to ensure ur safety...as I mentioned before(the existential threat part in my previous post). The other(space exploration) isnt to ensure ur safety. Perhaps u r thinking that I'm justifying it for Pak and criticizing India...I'm not.

If we just take Pak for example...
- Billions spent on nukes...yes it can be spent to uplift ppl out of poverty but what good would that be if there was no more Pakistan?
- Billions spent on a space program (theoretical scenario)...yes it can be spent to uplift ppl out of poverty and the repercussions would be not making the progress that would be made with space exploration...that's something u can live with. It doesn't come at the cost of ur own safety.

In both cases above, and for all others equally, it is up to every nation to decide for itself how it wishes to spend its resources, no matter how it may appear to others. That is the point.

 

[zip]

you answered your own question WHILE contradicting yourself. all that money spent on developing "technology" to go to the moon, be it 50 years ago or 2 weeks ago, how does it help solve problems and improve human life? Answer just that simple question...

Chandra yaana 2 is for pursuit of knowledge , it's not to dig gold on moon ..

 

[GumNaam]

Chandra yaana 2 is for pursuit of knowledge , it's not to dig gold on moon ..

oh is thaaaaat riiiiight...what oh WHAT knowledge about the moon were you planning on discovering that you could NOT have discovered by friggin' GOOGLING it! and what good what that "knowledge" would've brought to humanity? FOR EXAMPLE, suppose the last dying message that chanrayadayada 2 had sent was that THE MOON HAS NO OXYGEN! yeah no sh!t sherlock, don't try living there!

 

[zip]

oh is thaaaaat riiiiight...what oh WHAT knowledge about the moon were you planning on discovering that you could NOT have discovered by friggin' GOOGLING it! and what good what that "knowledge" would've brought to humanity? FOR EXAMPLE, suppose the last dying message that chanrayadayada 2 had sent was that THE MOON HAS NO OXYGEN! yeah no sh!t sherlock, don't try living there!

If your dad knows about forest and he can teach you everything about forest , does that mean it's a big waste for you to go there in person ?

 

[Cookie Monster]

In both cases above, and for all others equally, it is up to every nation to decide for itself how it wishes to spend its resources, no matter how it may appear to others. That is the point.

I do not agree with that.

The money spent on air bags and seat belts is to ensure SAFETY bcuz u cannot live on the hope that u would never get in a car accident. Could that money have been saved? Technically yes but if u do the risk assessment...that expenditure is worth it.
If however I go out and buy a Bugatti...could the money from that expenditure be saved and put to better use to take care of my family's NEEDS...yes...bcuz if I do the risk assessment on that...it is practically inconsequential.

That above analogy holds true when it comes to Pak's expenditures on nukes vs expenditures(theoretical) on a space program.

As for u saying whether or not Pak's nukes have helped with Pak's security...have u seen another 1971 type of scenario occur since?

 

[kinsr]

is he really that gullible? who said don't adopt computer technology? but do you see the difference between adopting computer techologies and utilizing them cure deseases verses going to the moon? alzheimer's was an example of my coworker genius, using that as a counter argument is just beneath me to even respond to since I made it abundantly clear that it was an EXAMPLE! you have provided ZERO credible arguments with regards to how going to the moon helps the common man...to bring the space program in overall just exposes your fragile arguments as I never said anything about any country's "space programs" and I made it loud & clear that I am strictly talking about going to other planetary bodies with is just a PART of space programs and a very expensive one. I never said anything against satellites or even the space station...

Read the last para of my reply to you... I just quoted a small example of kind of technology that was validated by Chandrayaan2. It has applications in defence, in navigation, in geomapping, creating land records, tracking landslides, checking encroachments and many more.

Now you can say that this could be done by a simple leo satellite why the moon? I ask you, why not the moon? Why not challenge our capabilities to the extreme? Why not build upon our failures? Why not try to build a vehicle that can move on a surface totally unknown to us? Why not build materials which can bear temperatures from 400 degs to -230 degs? Why not build sensors that can find minerals, ores from a distance rather than go down looking for them digging for it ? Why not build cameras that can map in 3D? Why not push more people into fields of research in Space? Why not inspire 1.3 billion people of thinking big?

Space is Just another domain, just like any other industry, moons , planets, galaxies , black holes, quasars , stars etc are merely just objects which run this industry.

By the way rare earths did come from outer space, H3 or water is just a guise to find those rare earth metals. How about we looking for Lithium on the moon. To be mined in future. According to you, we shouldn't look for it and just let China or US mine it for themselves only?

Probably you only see the short term loss of a lander, which is nothing according to space agencies.. rarely someone achieves results in a single go.