Bitcoin Space Program?

[kiba]

So, how many of you would donate bitcoin on a regular basis to sustain a space agency?

[SmokeTooMuch]

/r/equesting further details

[BioMike]

Yeah, depends on the goals of the Space Program.

[kiba]

Yeah, depends on the goals of the Space Program.

Explore mars. Build space stations. Build self replicating space probes. The usual.

[BioMike]

I might donate, depending on what they want to do and how they want to achieve it.

You might want to hint these people:

http://www.marssociety.org/

[RHorning]

It depends.  I'd consider strongly supporting a group like Team FredNet if they were to start taking donations.  For those not aware of this group, it is one of the teams of the Google Lunar X-Prize competition that uses mostly volunteers and "open source design" principles to build a vehicle that they are hoping will land on the Moon to win a multi-million dollar prize if they can get there first.  There are a few other groups like Copenhagen Suborbitals that also are very much deserving of financial support and can certainly use some help... where the money would be relatively well spent and have some huge payback.

In terms of dumping money into the fiscal black holes called national space agencies, I'd just as soon start donating money directly to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump.  RKK Energia is making a profit on its own without Russian taxpayers having to foot most of the bill, so I'm curious what other agency is being talked about here?  Donating to NASA?  Fat chance.  I'd rather see that agency disbanded completely as it is a total waste of tax dollars to keep that agency going at the moment.  It may have been useful to America at one time, but it isn't any more.

[ElectricGoat]

I too would donate to an organization if it's open enough so that you know what they do with the donations, but probably not to national space agencies. Some of my tax money already goes to them. However, if given the opportunity, I would vote for more of my tax money to go to research and exploration.

As of now, I believe the best I can help space exploration is to earn enough money to book a flight on Virgin Galactic.

[FatherMcGruder]

No. But I would invest. Space exploration can and should be profitable. However, I might make exceptions for academic ventures.

[ElectricGoat]

For some of us, having all of humanity on one planet is a basic problem; enough to spend a few dollars or bitcoins from time to time anyway.

Anyway, it's interesting how you see space programs in the same category as sports. They do produce pratical results and progress in everyday life. See for example http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/transportation-science/ten-nasa-inventions.htm but there is more.

[Prze_koles]

Assuming this is a serious question, there are too many intractable, basic social problems in the world to donate to space programs.

It's amazing to me that we don't ever find enough resources to fulfill all the basic human needs on the Maslow's pyramid; yet we always have money for huge armies, space programs, professional sports, etcetera...

Lol, socialists on Bitcoin forums?

We would still live in caves if we cared only for basic human needs.


@Topic

Maybe in a future.

[ElectricGoat]

Space exploration to propagate humanity to other planets is not a basic human necessity. If you really mean the basic problem of Earth overpopulation, i am more than willing to donate to that...

Space travel is never going to be a solution to overpopulation, it would cost way too much to massively send people away.
However, it would be a solution to anything that could wipe out humanity on Earth (nuclear war, big asteroid crash, who knows). As of today, all of humanity is on Earth, and if something happens to Earth, humanity disappears. If we had colonies elsewhere, at least the species would have a chance to survive.

Here is how those are in the same category for me: if you have a sick child and don't have enough money for its medical care, it would be foolish - imho - to spend the money you do have on an ocean cruise, or an educational trip, or to go watch a professional sports match.

But a space program is not leisure, it's research. It might not save one sick child today, but it will surely benefit many children, sick or not, in the future. We can't stop doing research because there are sick people, or we won't ever do research. I'm not saying we should spend all of our research money on space programs, but they're part of it and they do give practical results. So yes, I would donate to a space program, because not all of my money goes to helping people directly.

(As a matter of fact, I do give money to Doctors Without Borders. But it's a very small part of my salary, much less than what I spend in books or games, so I don't take any pride in it; just saying one can decide to care about both short and long term issues.)

[kiba]

Overpopulation is NOT A PROBLEM. The earth can potentially support trillion more human beings. Energy IS the problem. We need to be more efficient in our use of energy and as well find plentiful energy source. This is so that we can convert all those potential energy into something that can support the human race. Remember, the earth receive more energy from the sun in one hour than our entire civilization use in one year!

Medicine cannot be solved by mere throwing money at problem. It just need to be organized as an efficient enterprise. That mean, medicine should be mass-produced and as well become more effective over time. Imagine hundred of heart surgeon performing hundred of operation each day! You get more quality and quantity at the same time. Imagine all the hospitals in the world employing the little simple thing called CHECKLISTS.

Space travel IS a research program. And with all research program, we don't shit how we're going to benefit from it. The ROI however, could be astronomically huge. Beside, if you're interested in the survival of our species, it can only be a good thing.

[kiba]

So, it's not true that if we stop spending on space programs as long as we have people without health insurance, (for example) we will never be able to spend on space programs.
As a society, we simply make a conscious decision to say "too bad for people who can't afford medical care, we have to defend Taiwan, Japan, Germany, etc, against OBL, North Korea, Iran and asteroid annihilation..."

Money is not the problem, but rather how medicine is organized. Here are some of the problems:

1. Insurance should NOT be used for daily health care! It should only be used in EMERGENCY!  You should be able to pay out of your own pocket. Insurance is supposed to incentivize preventive medicine, but it's doesn't! Insurance is broken.

2. Medical guild. Enough said.

3. Regulations that impose high cost on medicine, innovation, etc.

4. Patents. Get rid of them.

5. Proven reform ignored. The fraking checklist? Where are the checklist in intensive care units? Where are my heart surgery factory?

All these factors contribute to poor incentive, inefficiency, and lives LOST. Remember folks, there's alway be scarce resources. These things need to be take care of by the market if you want to MAXIMIZE life saving.

[ElectricGoat]

So, it's not true that if we stop spending on space programs as long as we have people without health insurance, (for example) we will never be able to spend on space programs.

Well, it is true until we decide to collectively act to supress all basic life issues on Earth. Which is not going to happen any time soon. So until then, I would advise anyone with money to spend to not put all his eggs in the same basket and fund research now.

Overpopulation is NOT A PROBLEM. The earth can potentially support trillion more human beings.

Even if I agree overpopulation isn't going to be a problem for some time, a trillion human people is a bit much. I don't know what the maximum size of the population is, but anyway, we do live in a closed system, with a limited capacity. The only way we're going to escape overpopulation is by having less children.

[kiba]

Even if I agree overpopulation isn't going to be a problem for some time, a trillion human people is a bit much. I don't know what the maximum size of the population is, but anyway, we do live in a closed system, with a limited capacity. The only way we're going to escape overpopulation is by having less children.

The primary problem with starving humans is that a lot of culture can't support a market society, or that there is some kind of wars going on, and so forth. We could potentially turn the great Sahara desert into a blooming breadbasket for the rest of humanity if those African society got their act together(or we stop actively harming them with our well intentioned aid)

The ocean is also vastly unused. We might be able to support a bigger population if we can utilize that.

Now, overpopulation isn't so much of a worry anymore. Humans seem to be voluntary having less humans as they get wealthier.

[BioMike]

Oh. one more thing... space = space, not suborbital orbits. Minimum moon distance.

[ElectricGoat]

It's also true that if your sibling lost her job [...]

If I behaved the same way regarding siblings and unknown humans, then sure, I would spend 80% on my salary on helping NGOs. I wonder how many people do that. But your analogy works for any kind of research, not just space programs. I mean, why invent televisions or the internet while people are dying ? Why fund medical research on Alzeihmer's while children die of AIDS long before they can develop that disease ?

As you saw from some of the responses, i suspect you know that the answer from most people in this forum would also be NO

From which we can conclude a very simple fact of life: people don't agree, and will never agree, on what to fund with their money.
Whatever your big project might be, as soon as you ask for money, some people will come and say their big project is more urgent. Or more important. Or more fun. Hoping to decide on a single great goal is unrealistic, and might be counter-productive if you're waiting for that agreement before doing anything.

Those topics are just too boring, socialist, and off-the-radar here, compared to the "research" of saving the human race from asteroid annihilation...

Your conviction that nothing bad can happen to Earth is heartwarming

[kiba]

Those topics are just too boring, socialist, and off-the-radar here, compared to the "research" of saving the human race from asteroid annihilation...

Research, for what they are, have an unknown ROI value. We don't know if they will bring us the cure for cancer, or help us save the entire specie from asteroid annihilation. Space exploration involves an innumerable amount of technology that it would be hard to imagine that they would have no wide application for life on earth. So in conclusion, space exploration will probably benefit humanity in many indirect ways...

Still, asteroid annihilation is still a very real threat. It might happens now, or a thousand years from now. At the very least, we should prepare for that kind of possibility.

(Beside, if we can mine those asteroid, earth would be like filthy rich since the price of many commodity will drop to the floor)

[Prze_koles]

As you saw from some of the responses, i suspect you know that the answer from most people in this forum would also be NO, or Hell NO! 

Not true. My point was that if we invest more in researches and technology, we can for example invent better way to produce food or clear water. Second thing is that sending money to Africa or poor countries is just pointless. We are already sending them tons of money and the money is wasted or spent on weapons. It makes sense when you give money to 1 person or a family. But if you give it to the whole country you're destroying it.

Sorry for off-topic and my english

[Anonymous]

Get rid of all militaries and wars first. Otherwise well just end up using space technology to threaten each other.