Week in Review: To boldly go

eastern england must be the new hotspot then. i wonder when they'll get into manufacturing and designing cars

http://www.e2v.com/markets/space/

Exposure times for stars differ from that of other objects. If you expose an image of Jupiter from Earth for instance, you'll only see Jupiter's moons or stars if you dramatically over-expose the planet. If you don't, you won't see any moons or stars. As DR increases, this may change a bit. Plus, we don't know what direction the camera was pointing so the Milky Way, which appears as a band, might not be in view.

I don't see how ionization is relevant.

My 20 mp NX3000 aps-c camera which cost £189 actually has a lower pixel density than this camera. I use my EM5 MkI for its higher specification, ease of use and viewfinder but the cheap and cheerful Samsung camera for the best image quality. It is a funny old business this camera world.

@Wubslin The solution of many, many pressing problems on Earth depend on space science. For example, few things have advanced weather/storm forecasting and climate science than the last 20 years of data from our satellites in space. Satellites do things like help farmers, including those in poor countries, find new sources of water. Or petroleum. Sun research helps us understand the solar flares that could knock out the electronics you are using to write your post.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html

Some of those satellites are reaching the end of their lives but the blind, ignorant cutting of space science may result in problems no longer being solved for millions of ordinary people on Earth.

The cost of the Pluto mission is less than one of the many sports stadiums that private owners managed to get partially funded by taxpayers in many cities. And the budget of NASA is at one of its lowest points in history.

And how can you say it's "adventurism and fantasy" when so much science is coming back? You've got it backwards. This is actually the opposite of fantasy: This is reality.

No longer do we have to fantasize about what Pluto looks like. Now we have the facts. We are getting actual data that results in advances in geological science. We are no longer making things up.

Ironically, if we followed your advice and cut space science, that would leave us exactly where you don't want to be: Devoid of facts about the universe, without science, ignorant, left to merely fantasize.

You might as well put away your computer and start posting on this forum by sending in letters written on paper, because if you don't believe in basic science, you don't believe in the process that led to it being possible for you to afford a computer.

https://xkcd.com/1232/

@Wubslin. I value everyones opinion but am happy to differ from your view. That argument could be made for everything including money spent on commercials for smartphones or whatever you would want to name. I see no negative connection to this NASA mission.

Don't waste your time. He thinks anyone who has anything has been given it. The concept of earning is alien. The result of cradle to grave nanny state care.

Space exploration is important for the whole of humanity. You can think that the money can be better spent on current problems, but it doesn't solve any long term issues like over population.

The Planet has only a finite amount of resource and unless there is a global dictator that decides who can breed and who can't. The population will keep growing.

I wrote this once in another article:
Give a man a fish, it feeds him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, it feeds him for life.
and when there are too many fisherman, find another pond.

Everyone has the right to think what they like. And if you think your tax payer money shouldn't be spent on Space Exploration. I Hope in the distant future, your grandchildren, or their grandchildren are willing to stay behind on this planet when an asteroid hits and we have the ability to leave the planet due to other tax payers.

@RichRMA: Careful when you drive on those taxpayer-funded roads, you might catch the socialism from them.

A lot less than the long chain of hard scientific work and sacrifices that made your country prosperous and civilized so that you are now able to be bored and use technology to post narrow-minded questions about the relevance of fundamental science research.

@Francis Carver: Exactly, we should de-fund anything that doesn't turn an immediate profit. There is nothing we should care about except for money.

Yes, profit, there's nothing else out there. (he doesn't seem to get it, apparently)

@Francis Carver: 'This quest for "what is beyond the Universe"...'

Except there is no such quest. There is one for knowledge of this universe though. Is that such a bad thing?

@Wubslin: Yes it is, because "taxpayers" as a whole have neither the expertise nor the scientific understanding to be able to decide what are the avenues science should pursue long term. Common taxpayers will never understand why, for instance, math research is good for their well being, and if asked, they may just as well decide to end it all as it doesn't help them cook their next pizza.

Real science is hard, and most people will never understand its significance or priorities, so they shouldn't interfere.

NASA is currently 0.5% of the federal budget. That is the second lowest point in history. That percentage was twice as much 20 years ago and nine times as much in 1966.

If you want to complain about wasted money, there are much larger targets in the federal budget than NASA because NASA's budget keeps getting cut further every year.