I'd like to take the questions seriously and take a crack at them, but...I really don't understand them.
1) Why do we have to conduct research by breakthrough scientific discoveries?
2) What scientific discoveries do we need? If you're going to say energy, be specific.
To question 1), I remember in doing engineering research, the idea was to postulate a theory and then conduct experiments to obtain data points either proving or disproving the theory. I don't recall that we conducted research by "breakthrough scientific discoveries." As to question 2), seems to me that any scientific discoveries that would improve our lives would be appropriate to pursue. That being said, like anything else, the funding of scientific research needs to be prioritized.
It might help to know the details of whatever your feud with Knight is, so your questions could be answered more intelligently...assuming the questions are actually serious and not just "baiting."
1) Why do we have to conduct research by breakthrough scientific discoveries?
2) What scientific discoveries do we need? If you're going to say energy, be specific.
To question 1), I remember in doing engineering research, the idea was to postulate a theory and then conduct experiments to obtain data points either proving or disproving the theory. I don't recall that we conducted research by "breakthrough scientific discoveries." As to question 2), seems to me that any scientific discoveries that would improve our lives would be appropriate to pursue. That being said, like anything else, the funding of scientific research needs to be prioritized.
It might help to know the details of whatever your feud with Knight is, so your questions could be answered more intelligently...assuming the questions are actually serious and not just "baiting."
- Far too many of our citizens (including posters here) resort to "breakthrough (unexpected) scientific discoveries." That is their excuse when they don’t want to cut R & D spending for projects they like. In their desperation. The discoverable “data points” for nonsense like space exploration and fusion are there for a quick decision. Part of the part is only a few private sector companies invest much for this nonsense. No more than about $100 million and in most cases much less. This money is wasted for their investors. As adults, we should identify needed but realistic projects, not throw crap against the wall to see what sticks. Besides, the U.S. economy (at least $20 trillion/year) and its private sector do plenty of R & D. Along with at least a few hundred billion $ R & D from the DOD and NIH.
- There is close to zero payback.
- Maintenance and logistics (how many backup systems would we need for environmental, power, electrical, computer systems). I’ll add that large enterprises like the military and the airlines have large staffs to maintain equipment along with tools and parts.
- Once people learn how horrible such a mission would be, no one would want to go. No one could ever earn enough to be away from their families for a few years. People would have zero opportunity for
- The economics are not there. It is ridiculous to think there is some energy source that is far more concentrated than something like oil or coal. But to extract and transport it back to earth is ridiculous. Coal for example is transported at most a few thousand miles to markets in the U.S. The average distance to the moon is 238k from earth. And the same distance would essentially be traversed to get EMPTY vessels back to the moon for re-loading.
- The health dangers especially from radiation are a gamebreaker.
