NASA's sending up a satellite to try and prevent an exploding star from killing us all? I think I found the money to expand the food stamps program.

NASA's sending up a satellite to try and prevent an exploding star from killing us all?

When the time comes, can't we just get Bruce Willis to save us?

Where did you read this in the article? I read that the mission was purely for research purposes. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

My mistake, they're sending a up a satellite to try and determine if an exploding star could have killed off life on Earth. I still think that's poor allocation of tax dollars.

My mistake, they're sending a up a satellite to try and determine if an exploding star could have killed off life on Earth. I still think that's poor allocation of tax dollars.

No, they are sending the satellite to study gamma ray bursts, to learn more about the universe. I don't think it's poor allocation of tax dollars at all.

I think the majority of NASA is a poor allocation of tax dollars, but I think I ranted on this in another thread, so I won't derail this thread with my bitching.

Despite far-reaching goals, NASA benefits Earth most
By David J. Eicher
The next time you reach for your cell phone, thank NASA. If your doctor recommends an MRI, thank NASA. The space agency deserves another moment of gratitude when you pop in a DVD and settle back for a good movie, or when you reach for a composite golf club, hoping to out-drive your buddies. And think of NASA when a smoke detector blares to save your life.
NASA often is relegated to elitist-bureaucracy status, seen as driven by starry-eyed scientists looking to grab funds away from better use on Earth. But since the days of Apollo, NASA has contributed to the technological advancement of everyday life on Earth as much as — and maybe more than — anything else. That's why President Bush's new space initiative, while expensive, will pay back incalculable dividends to everyone on Earth during the coming decades, just as the Apollo program did.

Bush and NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe contend that "seed money" of $1 billion during the next five years will initiate this bold new move, which includes a return to the moon by about 2015, construction of a lunar base five years later and a manned mission to Mars by about 2030.

They suggest the bulk of this money will come from shifting priorities within NASA's budget, now $15.5 billion annually. Indeed, the price will be high in both cost and priorities; the Hubble Space Telescope, for example, will be doomed because it no longer will be serviced after the musty and unreliable fleet of space shuttles is relegated to the Smithsonian.

Windfall for astronomy

But the shock waves emanating from a change from low-Earth orbit, with its limited scientific value, to deep-space exploration will rock the science world. Much of what will follow could be done robotically and — in the short term — for a lower cost. Ultimately, however, what must be done on the moon and on Mars can be done only with a human on site, making the immediate decisions that a computer cannot.

Astronomers and planetary scientists will experience a windfall if the Bush initiative receives congressional blessing. What humans learn about the moon and the Red Planet will put the big questions of the rarity of life in the universe into stark perspective and will tell us much about Earth's own future, the fate of the solar system and our cosmic genesis.

Humans stand on the threshold of answering these questions: how the universe formed, how we came to be and where it is all going. That kind of explorative curiosity — "to see what's over the next hill," as O'Keefe puts it — is, after all, the most important thing that separates humans from Douglas firs.

Technological advances

Even those without a passion for exploration will see big gains right here on the home planet as engineers push technology and innovation forward. New exploration vehicles will spur changes in aircraft travel on Earth. Education will get the spark it so desperately needs as space exploration once again fires the imaginations of millions of children.

Most of the gains, however, will be at the everyday-life level. The money will be used to employ thousands and push technology to unknowable heights.

Forty years ago, NASA engineers didn't start one Monday morning by saying, "Gee, I think I'll work on microchip technology that, 30 years downstream, will lead to digital cameras." But that's what happened. The technological gains that come out of research arise from a kind of ripple effect: advance on top of advance, technology growing out of technology.

Those who control NASA's budget cannot predict the most exciting things that will change the way we live our lives a generation hence. But they will find new technology, and Americans will use it, just as we now use GPS receivers, ski jackets and plastic bags for our leftovers. Even those unmoved by human exploration will see everyday advances well worth NASA's new budget.

Regrettably, Bush did not further outline his plans in Tuesday's State of the Union address. We will need to wait to understand the initiative's details. But one thing already is clear: If his plans become reality, the moon and Mars will be new worlds — and so will Earth.

David J. Eicher is the editor of Astronomy magazine. He is the author of seven books on astronomy and has a minor planet, 3617 Eicher, named for him.

It's just my personal opinion that it hasn't been worth billions of dollars to speed up inventions like teflon, cell phones, dvds, digital cameras, GPS, ski jackets, and plastic bags. These are all great things, but it's not like we found them in space. We invented the technology while trying to get to space. How many billions was it worth to have DVDs in the 90's instead of in 2010? I would have gone without DVDs if it meant that money could feed people, house people, cure cancer, stop AIDS, etc.

My mistake, they're sending a up a satellite to try and determine if an exploding star could have killed off life on Earth. I still think that's poor allocation of tax dollars.

Space is neato, Just_B, but I'm completely in your boat. This is a pointless waste of money that could be better used elsewhere.

If we're gonna go nuclear, knowing about it a week ahead of time isn't going to stop us. It's not like you can just put up an embrella and everything will be ok.

Just to keep this from going downhill fast, I don't think that all space exploration is a "pointless waste of money." I think NASA is overfunded and many, many missions are largely unneccesary, but I haven't yet decided that NASA is completely useless.