If the US wanted a moon base, would international law really stop them?

And yeah, asteroids are certainly a real possibility and soon. That James Cameron stuff looks really cool.

"long-term we're going to want a moon base anyway"

Why?

"Going ahead with building a base could long term be a pretty beneficial case for an eventual claim or stake to at least part of the place"

If you consider owning an area of the Moon to be worthwhile this is a valid argument, but I see no reason that owning part of the Moon is desirable.

The moon is nothing like any planet humans could ever live on. Learning how to build a colony on a low gravity world without atmosphere is a pointless exercise. You might as well invest in the constrution of floating cities.

"Lastly, space exploration is essentially R&D funding"

Yes, but it's R&D into pointless areas. It's like investing billions into finding highly efficient coal powered steam engines. You will end up with the best damned steam engine ever created, but it will be a complete waste of time.

We need R&D into finding better energy sources and new engines and methods of travel in space. R&D into building huts on a dead rock is such a painful waste it hurts to even think about it.

"It's not as though these states can't actually pay for their social benefit programs, it's that lots of people don't think they should. And the space budget is so minor in comparison that it's a moot point anyway."
I have to ask if you are joking:
62% of the US budget is spent on entitlements

if we cut everything except for entitlements the US would run an 161 million surplus and we would start running deficits again by 2015.

Remember this is no government whatsoever other then entitlements, no congress, no law enforcement no nothing. Just entitlements.

By 2050 entitlements without reform and going to triple government revenue (assuming current tax rates are maintained) and more then double them if we go back to clinton era tax rates.

This is unaffordable and unsustainable.

"Yes, but it's R&D into pointless areas."

I must disagree with this. NASA is responsible for countless unexpected yet useful inventions.

But the government has to be careful when putting money into R&D, I'm not a believer in the model that throwing money at something will make it better, and in many cases it may make it worse because then we become reckless with the money.

I also, unlike many people, disagree with the assertion that space exploration is important.

I honestly can't see that much coming out of space exploration, special relativity suggestions that we will never leave the solar system so whats the point?

I approve a missions like the mars rover, but unless we find valuable resources on Mars or Venus I would see no reason to try to get a human over there.

Indeed, but you get just as many fringe benefits from projects that have a useful primary purpose. Consider a trip to the beach, where on the way you pass an orange seller from whom you buy some amazing oranges. A fine example of a good primary purpose with positive fringe benefits. Now imagine a trip to a political party conference that passes an orange seller. Yes, the fringe benefits are still good, but that doesn't stop the trip being a near complete waste of your time and resources.

and that said I'm a big believer in the now, even if it was feasible that we could go on to colonize a planet in alpha centauri, the technology and value of such a mission are millennia out of our grasp, especially in a time of fiscal tightness like today I see no reason to invest in a large space program.

i think that realistically, (and this is pure speculation) looking at the amount of people our planet is supposedly supposed to be able to support with our current population explosion in the next 100 years, its stupid to not look towards colonization at this moment. even if just as an unmanned spaceport in 20 years with pure robotic mining facilities. it wouldnt cost anymore then a couple nukes upkeep and would be more beneficial in the longrun. i just started re-reading enders game (im up to book 3 atm) so this is pure bias speculation

"Anyone who suggests cutting government R&D funding*at all* doesn't have their priorities straight. You think we have budget problems now? Wait till we have all the same debts, but no innovative economy to keep paying them with. Fast track to the third world."
Again this is assuming most innovation comes from the government, which is frankly BS, proven by the fact that the liberal demoracies heavily outperformed the USSR and that the most innovative industry right now, communications, has virtually no government interference (and these new anti-trust cases will likely stiffle economic growth)

I don't think cutting government funding for R&D is a bad idea. Leave it up to the free market as most innovations either come from private company or university labs.

"i think that realistically, (and this is pure speculation) looking at the amount of people our planet is supposedly supposed to be able to support with our current population explosion in the next 100 years, its stupid to not look towards colonization at this moment. even if just as an unmanned spaceport in 20 years with pure robotic mining facilities. it wouldnt cost anymore then a couple nukes upkeep and would be more beneficial in the longrun. i just started re-reading enders game (im up to book 3 atm) so this is pure bias speculation"
Will the population rise?

China is starting to see declining growth due to its one child policy and Europe, Japan and North America been having a declining birthrate for decades (immigration has kept our growth up) economists see a bigger fear in the stagnating population then in a rising population.

And the exponential population growth you site is the Malthusian check that was disproven decades ago and is now considered defunct by most, if not all economists.

It really stretches the psyche to try to empathize with someone who is so short-sighted they can't see why creating habitable colonies away from Earth is something we want.

It's actually, literally upsetting how little regard some people seem to have for inter-generational equity. Pretty fucked.

Fasces, everyone, and I mean everyone, on the left and right, pretty much agree that government R&D funding is both good and efficient. Even free market Nazis like you.

You're embarrassing yourself.

"Leave it up to the free market as most innovations either come from private company or university labs."

This is painfully false.

that said I do see good reason to cut the nuclear budget or at least reform it. I see no reason to keep building nukes and China, Russia and America combined have enough nukes to destroy 8 earths, why do we need more nukes? I would much rather more nuclear power to reduce to cost of energy.

The same argument applies to tanks. In both cases the pentagon has requested budget cuts in these areas and congress (both parites) rejected on the basis that these are now job creation programs and less about useful military expidentures.

Especially when you consider how much public funding both the companies and the labs get. Fucking moron.

"It really stretches the psyche to try to empathize with someone who is so short-sighted they can't see why creating habitable colonies away from Earth is something we want. "
Right now land is not the scarcest high demand resource on the planet. Until land starts becoming scarce I see no reason to waste billions or trillions of dollars on creating habital colonies on other planets.

"Fasces, everyone, and I mean everyone, on the left and right, pretty much agree that government R&D funding is both good and efficient. Even free market Nazis like you.

You're embarrassing yourself."
I never said cut it down to 0, I just said you have to be careful when advocating for government R&D projects.

"This is painfully false."
Citation needed.

"Especially when you consider how much public funding both the companies and the labs get."
Looking at the budget according to whitehouse.gov the spending on science and technology is $29 billion, of which 18 billion went to NASA. The rest went to "general science and basic research", I would suggest you do the research before making these bold claims.

You need to think outside your little market box bro.

You are aware of the failings of the market system, which are legion, right?

For clarity, DO NOT READ THIS AS AN ATTACK ON THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, rather, read it as an attack on your misguided market *fundamentalism*.

If you want a citation, start googling. The truth defends itself.

And I would be very surprised to find out if Apple, Google or Microsoft, the 3 biggest innovators of the last decade, got a single penny from the governments R&D or the governments corporate subsidies expidentures, especially considering how much profit these companies make anyway.

Quit while you're ahead dude.

Many of the most successful technologies of today are predicated on decades of previous research that had previously had little to no short-term market application.

I'm not going to keep arguing this with you because it cheeses me off watching you make an ass out of yourself.

Where do you learn your bullshit anyway? University of Chicago? lmao

i wasnt aware that economists predicted population growth but heres where im citing my knowledge from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Population-growth.jpg so hey i could be entirely unknowledgeable on the subject. i know our resources are dwindling, and although we are advancing more places on earth are becoming uninhabitable by our own hands those combined with even a trickle of pop growth will soon reach inhospitable levels maybe not in 100 years but 200? 500? it isnt that long on a grand scale.

'I see great danger for the human race. There have been a number of times in the past when survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 is one of these. ‘The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully.’ Hawking

Economists pride themselves in the ability to predict anything and everything. We are the universal prophets of this age. Worship our impressive crossdisciplinary infallibility.

^you sir just got a plus 1

"Quit while you're ahead dude.

Many of the most successful technologies of today are predicated on decades of previous research that had previously had little to no short-term market application.

I'm not going to keep arguing this with you because it cheeses me off watching you make an ass out of yourself."
well your quiting while your behind. Your refusing to site your sources, while all of my come from your sacred government agencies and google it hardly covers as a sufficient backing when both treasury.gov and whitehouse.gov back my argument.

Provide sources that are more reliable then mine, I would consider changing my stance.

"i wasnt aware that economists predicted population growth but heres where im citing my knowledge from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Population-growth.jpg so hey i could be entirely unknowledgeable on the subject. i know our resources are dwindling, and although we are advancing more places on earth are becoming uninhabitable by our own hands those combined with even a trickle of pop growth will soon reach inhospitable levels maybe not in 100 years but 200? 500? it isnt that long on a grand scale. "
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/WorldPopGrowth.png
From the same article, yes we are going to reach 9 billion people. Big deal 150 years ago everyone was talking about how we wouldn't be able to sustain 2 billion people and we were about to hit an age of massive poverty and decline population.

A 50% growth in population is nothing, my bigger concern is the declining population that we will see after that.

"'I see great danger for the human race. There have been a number of times in the past when survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 is one of these. ‘The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully.’"
Ghug complains that I name-drop. Hawking is a theoretical-physicist, I trust economists more on the very basis that economist more accurately predicted economic and population growth. In any case:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/10/hunger
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2011/12/daily-chart-3
http://www.economist.com/node/21561112
http://www.economist.com/node/21525472

"Economists pride themselves in the ability to predict anything and everything. We are the universal prophets of this age. Worship our impressive crossdisciplinary infallibility."
:D

see the problem with trusting an economist over a physicist in the case i presented is an economist is going to say something to the extent of "it wont be economically viable to leave the world until ____ date" whereas the physicist is going to say from space when the numerous catastrophes that could happen do happen "well yall may still be economically stable but at least im alive."
we are talking about things that intimately concern mister hawking whereas an economist is going to see things from a rather close minded and earthbound standpoint.

i do agree that now is not the time to worry about expensive venture capitalism to mine the moon for rare earth metals and the like but it needs to be left very close to everyone's butter knife on the table and handled as soon as this whole "fiscal cliff" media extravaganza fox is hyping up is done and over with and we have progressed to solving the "debt crisis" with all the monopoly money those people are worried about us not having.

that is the most ridiculous think I have ever read. If the world is going to end tomorrow, then it is economically viable to leave the world today but life is the biggest incentive.

And besides, I don't think there is a credible physicists out there who sees us colonizing other planets in the near future as realistic.

And the debt crisis is not a media hype but an actual problem. granted the short term consequences of the fiscal cliff have been grossly exaggerated by the media and the real fiscal cliff (a japan-esque lost decade scenario) is years away if the government could competently negotiate with each other and the debt ceiling is bullshit.

And human behaviour and tendencies like the cuban missile crisis belong more in sociology then theoretical physics, I'm not saying Mr Hawkin doesn't know what he is talking about, but what you are quoting from him is out of his area of expertise.

Also economists are not as closed minded as you think. Economic forecasts are fundamentally based on supply and demand. As the technology becomes more available the supply line expands and what becomes economically viable increases.

Besides right now it would take us soething like 90,000 for us to get to alpha centauri based on current technology, I don't think anyone sees that as a realistic possible for the near future.

*because not but