First off, G.W. Bush's plan actually managed to get NASA to do something novel, rather than just sit tight around the Station/Shuttle, a feat which is itself important and non-trivial. Second, you have rather...interesting ideas about what the US can do as far as restarting the Apollo program. Even if the US has all the plans for all of the equipment used in the program, it is doubtful that any of it can be reproduced. Many of the contractors have probably gone out of business, and many of the parts are probably no longer made. Besides, modern technology is superior to the old 60's stuff; a brand-new design would likely perform better anyways. Therefore, NASA chose to design new capsules, rockets, rovers, and so on, with better, modern technology, rather than try to convince a bunch of suppliers to start producing old, obsolete junk, which they might not even be able to do anymore.
As a rather large number of spacers have pointed out, again and again, there exists in space resources that would allow solutions to many mundane problems. Well-nigh infinite amounts of clean energy, millions and millions of tons of metals and other compounds which could be processed perfectly cleanly, and a vast amount of living space are all available in space. Yet, no matter how many times spacers point this out, the earthers ignore them, saying instead that terrestrial problems should be solved first, even if space offers an excellent way to solve whatever issue. Sure, it would be expensive and difficult to establish the necessary industries in space (probably hundreds of billions of dollars at the least), but the Earth simply cannot offer as much as space in any of these areas.
The thing is, SpaceShipOne actually is a rocket--just not a very big one. Right now, there are no working alternatives to rockets for space flight. Solar sails and the like won't work for launch--too little thrust--and space elevators, gun-type launchers, and any other plausible alternative to rockets for launch simply can't be built. Indeed, rockets aren't the most efficient way of getting up there, but we can't build anything more efficient at the moment.
The thing is, if you compare the budgets of NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/HQ_06056_Budget_Statement.html) and NIH (http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2007directorsbudgetrequest.htm) (the agency responsible for funding most federal health research), it turns out that NIH gets about $12 billion a year more than NASA. Granted, not all of that is spent on AIDS or cancer research, but there is the additional factor that substantial private monies are also spent on health research, while little private money is spent on the sorts of things NASA does.
With the government also spending a trillion+ dollars a year to treat certain ill people (and to try to slightly lessen some social ills), it seems that they are already following your recommendation that money should be spent on AIDS or cancer research instead of NASA. Of course, there is the question of why AIDS or cancer research in particular should be a priority--what about antibiotics? Almost everyone needs those at some point in their lives, after all. Or better anti-malarial drugs--about twice as many people per year are killed by malaria than by cancer.
Finally, some (such as the late Gerard K. O'Neill) have suggested that space travel and exploration could be used to help solve certain problems on Earth, particularly poverty. Space travel is no cure-all, of course, and there are also many smart people who doubt that space industry or the like would do much good or be very practical, but it is difficult to know for sure without going.
While many alien lifeforms are likely to look like earth life (aquatic life, for example, will probably look like fish everywhere), I suspect that for the most part alien life will be quite different from earth life, probably more different than Hollywood depicts it. Many creatures on earth look the way they do simply by accident, with no particular advantage to that shape. Also, of course, alien environments will probably be quite different from terran environments, leading to different biochemistries and different environmental pressures on evolution.
The "aliens" referenced in the article are not properly aliens, merely microbes with a different biochemistry than ordinary bacteria (e.g possessing macromolecules with different handedness than all known life). Therefore, the comparison posed here is faulty; neither the "aliens" nor the ordinary life would possess any special advantage based on forming on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, G.W. Bush's plan actually managed to get NASA to do something novel, rather than just sit tight around the Station/Shuttle, a feat which is itself important and non-trivial.
Second, you have rather...interesting ideas about what the US can do as far as restarting the Apollo program. Even if the US has all the plans for all of the equipment used in the program, it is doubtful that any of it can be reproduced. Many of the contractors have probably gone out of business, and many of the parts are probably no longer made. Besides, modern technology is superior to the old 60's stuff; a brand-new design would likely perform better anyways. Therefore, NASA chose to design new capsules, rockets, rovers, and so on, with better, modern technology, rather than try to convince a bunch of suppliers to start producing old, obsolete junk, which they might not even be able to do anymore.
As a rather large number of spacers have pointed out, again and again, there exists in space resources that would allow solutions to many mundane problems. Well-nigh infinite amounts of clean energy, millions and millions of tons of metals and other compounds which could be processed perfectly cleanly, and a vast amount of living space are all available in space. Yet, no matter how many times spacers point this out, the earthers ignore them, saying instead that terrestrial problems should be solved first, even if space offers an excellent way to solve whatever issue. Sure, it would be expensive and difficult to establish the necessary industries in space (probably hundreds of billions of dollars at the least), but the Earth simply cannot offer as much as space in any of these areas.
The thing is, SpaceShipOne actually is a rocket--just not a very big one. Right now, there are no working alternatives to rockets for space flight. Solar sails and the like won't work for launch--too little thrust--and space elevators, gun-type launchers, and any other plausible alternative to rockets for launch simply can't be built. Indeed, rockets aren't the most efficient way of getting up there, but we can't build anything more efficient at the moment.
The thing is, if you compare the budgets of NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/HQ_06056_Budget_Statement.html) and NIH (http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2007directorsbudgetrequest.htm) (the agency responsible for funding most federal health research), it turns out that NIH gets about $12 billion a year more than NASA. Granted, not all of that is spent on AIDS or cancer research, but there is the additional factor that substantial private monies are also spent on health research, while little private money is spent on the sorts of things NASA does. With the government also spending a trillion+ dollars a year to treat certain ill people (and to try to slightly lessen some social ills), it seems that they are already following your recommendation that money should be spent on AIDS or cancer research instead of NASA. Of course, there is the question of why AIDS or cancer research in particular should be a priority--what about antibiotics? Almost everyone needs those at some point in their lives, after all. Or better anti-malarial drugs--about twice as many people per year are killed by malaria than by cancer. Finally, some (such as the late Gerard K. O'Neill) have suggested that space travel and exploration could be used to help solve certain problems on Earth, particularly poverty. Space travel is no cure-all, of course, and there are also many smart people who doubt that space industry or the like would do much good or be very practical, but it is difficult to know for sure without going.
While many alien lifeforms are likely to look like earth life (aquatic life, for example, will probably look like fish everywhere), I suspect that for the most part alien life will be quite different from earth life, probably more different than Hollywood depicts it. Many creatures on earth look the way they do simply by accident, with no particular advantage to that shape. Also, of course, alien environments will probably be quite different from terran environments, leading to different biochemistries and different environmental pressures on evolution.
The "aliens" referenced in the article are not properly aliens, merely microbes with a different biochemistry than ordinary bacteria (e.g possessing macromolecules with different handedness than all known life). Therefore, the comparison posed here is faulty; neither the "aliens" nor the ordinary life would possess any special advantage based on forming on Earth.