I am wondering... um about the craters, how does such a base survive what causes these craters.
Ya know, essentially bombs combined with no atmosphere and a Russian roulette feeling does not equal a good idea, at least in my book. Why not mars?
Because, we've got no idea who's really correct.
Is Mars a giant reactor? Or is it home to spindly brain-guys with bad immune systems? Or is it already being terraformed by little bugs? Or, could it be...
Yeah, because there's no air on the moon old craters do not get eroded and effectively made invisible; thus, you see every impact that's ever been made on it, like some horrible face plastered with acne. Of course, we also don't see so many craters on earth because the atmosphere burns a lot of them before they land.
Corlis on
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Man, looking forward to this kind of stuff makes the pain of engineering courses more tolerable.
Start working for/or with NASA. That'll cure your youthful exuberance right quick.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
Fragtastic on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
The fixed-budget thing satisfies the 'better spent elsewhere' argument I was about to bring up. If this is how NASA wishes to use their budget, go for it. Better yet, to see if we can really get things going, someone call up Russia and China and say "Hey. It's the States. First one to build a moon base wins. Annnnnd.... go!"
As for the proverbial African problem:
*It's not going away anytime soon. You're free to send money and food and medical supplies and whatnot. In fact, please do. But know it's not getting fixed anytime soon.
*The last time there was a space race, we got all sorts of cool stuff.
*This space race will no doubt require research of methods to grow food in inhospitable conditions. Yeah, hydroponics, but I think we'll need more than that for a permanent moon base.
*What continent could really use a way to grow food in inhospitable conditions? Give you three guesses.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Man, looking forward to this kind of stuff makes the pain of engineering courses more tolerable.
Start working for/or with NASA. That'll cure your youthful exuberance right quick.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
Space shuttle flight controller for 5 years right out of college.
What was it about the work that killed your enthusiasm exactly? I would imagine it to be something really significant to make you quit NASA, a pinnacle of modern engineering and go into the private sector.
Man, looking forward to this kind of stuff makes the pain of engineering courses more tolerable.
Start working for/or with NASA. That'll cure your youthful exuberance right quick.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
Space shuttle flight controller for 5 years right out of college.
What was it about the work that killed your enthusiasm exactly? I would imagine it to be something really significant to make you quit NASA, a pinnacle of modern engineering and go into the private sector.
Plus, you know, money.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Man, looking forward to this kind of stuff makes the pain of engineering courses more tolerable.
Start working for/or with NASA. That'll cure your youthful exuberance right quick.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
Space shuttle flight controller for 5 years right out of college.
What was it about the work that killed your enthusiasm exactly? I would imagine it to be something really significant to make you quit NASA, a pinnacle of modern engineering and go into the private sector.
Man, looking forward to this kind of stuff makes the pain of engineering courses more tolerable.
Start working for/or with NASA. That'll cure your youthful exuberance right quick.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
Space shuttle flight controller for 5 years right out of college.
What was it about the work that killed your enthusiasm exactly? I would imagine it to be something really significant to make you quit NASA, a pinnacle of modern engineering and go into the private sector.
...are you serious?
Kinda what I was thinking. I have no personal experience with NASA but its a government agency. Stuff doesn't get done without too many people having their say, money gets wasted on bureaucratic stuff, etc.
Private sector is way beyond NASA as far as tech goes. Because there is more money there.
I think it's silly to be spending money on this now.
NASA's budget is fixed. The money they're allocating to start putting people on the moon doesn't leave much room for projects with actual scientific value. Like say better versions of hubble (which was already almost axed for this), or telescopes that can detect earth-size planets around other stars and infer the atmosphere (which *were* axed for this, last time I checked). Or we could pump the money into nanotechnology and medical research that will make access to space cheap (space elevator?) and allow humans to survive much better in low gravity, high radiation environments. They might even benefit people here on earth.
You know, things that might someday lead to actual colonization of real planets rather than 8 guys hunkered down underground several hundred thousand miles away 3 or 4 decades from now.
Theoretically we're doing this so we can gear up for mars. Mars is estimated to cost $450 billion+, and that's what NASA estimates not what it will wind up costing. That's assuming we ever figure out a way to keep radiation from killing everyone en route. Mars is a pipedream. There's no good reason to go there right now except Bush's vision of manifest destiny. Maybe we can come back in 100 years when space access is cheap and "because" is a good enough reason to pay.
Probably a new administration will fire Griffin and dump the whole project overboard. It's a nice way to get rid of the horribly expensive ($300 million per flight iirc) and dangerous shuttle, anyway.
Nissl on
360: Purkinje
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited December 2006
I really think that all the money should be spent driving down launch costs. Once that happens, anything else would be pretty easy.
I think NASA needs to concentrate on getting enough traffic back and forth between the moon and here so that space piracy will be a viable career option.
I think NASA needs to concentrate on getting enough traffic back and forth between the moon and here so that space piracy will be a viable career option.
And then of course you'll need space bounty hunters to beat back the space pirates.
And suddenly the question of how space travel fits into the economy is answered.
I really think that all the money should be spent driving down launch costs. Once that happens, anything else would be pretty easy.
The Orion (super-keen replacement for the shuttle) should clear that up right quick.
Oh God Orions are awesome.
Also totally illegal now.
But so goddamn awesome.
It's not what you think it is. It's not "The Orion" as in the rocket powered by multiple exploding nuclear bombs. It's just something like the Soyuz capsule, which frankly, thank fucking god. The Soyuz is even older then the shuttle and the damn thing has just worked and worked and worked.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The fixed-budget thing satisfies the 'better spent elsewhere' argument I was about to bring up.
Well, that would be an argument against having fancy space programs in general, more than one particularly against a moon base.
As for the proverbial African problem:
*It's not going away anytime soon. You're free to send money and food and medical supplies and whatnot. In fact, please do. But know it's not getting fixed anytime soon.
You'd be suprised how far a little goes. Furthermore, not all aid is food or medical supplies, and charities are getting a lot smarter about doing work that keeps giving long after the initial donation.
£50 can pay a trainee teacher’s salary in Kenya. Over a year £50 a month means we could pay the salary of 12 more teachers helping people to learn the skills they need to work their own way out of poverty.
£100 could pay for seven water pipes. Give Oxfam £100 a month and in a year we could bring clean, safe water to people in 84 villages.
£250 can pay for a cow for a dairy farmer in Malawi . Over a year £250 a month can provide 12 families with a cow, that can produce milk to sell and generate an income which could be used to fund their children’s education.
Finally, Africa is not the only place in the world where humanitarian aid could do a lot of good. As long as there are people in desperate need we should question our other spending priorities. Yeah, a moon base is cool, but what good does cool do people without clean drinking water?
I realize that this is raining on the fun times of imagining space piracy. However, the space program is an archetypical example of something which is neat, but not terribly useful. Velcro is neat, but how much worse off would we be now had we never been to the moon? How much better off would even our own country's poor be had we instead put the money into social programs? It's a question that needs answering.
I realize that this is raining on the fun times of imagining space piracy. However, the space program is an archetypical example of something which is neat, but not terribly useful. Velcro is neat, but how much worse off would we be now had we never been to the moon? How much better off would even our own country's poor be had we instead put the money into social programs? It's a question that needs answering.
The by-products of space exploration go far beyond velcro. All those communication satellites up there didn't get there on their own.
You can't just stop space programs though, because it doesn't work that way. You create social problems in your own country by not focusing on high technology industry, because the minds that are capable of working in it have nothing to aspire to or dream of. Most of the people here on these forums don't envisage a life spent working in Africa to 'fix' problems there.
Furthermore, without government mandated programs that require high technology, we deny ourselves spin off innovations which are a very well appreciated part of the cycle of R&D, in fact one of the reasons it's so damn useful. Valid points have already been made that solving the problem of outer space construction will no doubt lead to technological innovations that can be applied to other areas. But you won't get these by not building a moon base or by just trying to develop the technology for self-sufficient food production because you won't attract the type of innovative thinking that a project that really challenges our technological limits will.
Finally, Africa won't be solved by spending loads of money on it, because loads of money tends to encourage inefficiency - and you wouldn't believe it but loads of money is what Africa really really doesn't need - it's why LiveAid failed spectacularly. People have been developing grand plans for Africa for decades and none of them work because they fail as soon as anything deviates from the plan and tend to assume no corruption. Africa will only really be solved by multiple, cheap, small scale efforts that sadly have to move slowly because of the social environment in which they live. Unless someone can show that we're really not achieving progress in Africa because capital for a specific project cannot be found, as opposed to capital for huge numbers of the same project, then I don't think we're really missing out on anything.
I personally wish NASA would focus its energies much more on new propulsion systems, and on those Earth-like planet finding projects.
I have a feeling this will end up being something like an ISS on the moon, which would really be unfortunate considering the state that project is in.
Depends. The problem with ISS is, other then being a useful space laboratory, there isn't actually much potential of development because there is no possibility of finding some type of useful resource from the environment it is in.
The moon - not so much. I'd be interested to know if there have been any geological surveys that have worked out what sort of minerals we could expect to find deposited there, since that would play a significant role in determining how hard building a colony would be. If it were possible to get even basic resources for construction from there, then we might be able to seriously consider working out if you can technically grow things like crops. If anything, it would be a radical lesson in what our food crops actually need at the bare minimum to grow.
I personally wish NASA would focus its energies much more on new propulsion systems, and on those Earth-like planet finding projects.
I have a feeling this will end up being something like an ISS on the moon, which would really be unfortunate considering the state that project is in.
Depends. The problem with ISS is, other then being a useful space laboratory, there isn't actually much potential of development because there is no possibility of finding some type of useful resource from the environment it is in.
The moon - not so much. I'd be interested to know if there have been any geological surveys that have worked out what sort of minerals we could expect to find deposited there, since that would play a significant role in determining how hard building a colony would be. If it were possible to get even basic resources for construction from there, then we might be able to seriously consider working out if you can technically grow things like crops. If anything, it would be a radical lesson in what our food crops actually need at the bare minimum to grow.
Little house on the moon? I can see it now
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I personally wish NASA would focus its energies much more on new propulsion systems, and on those Earth-like planet finding projects.
I have a feeling this will end up being something like an ISS on the moon, which would really be unfortunate considering the state that project is in.
Depends. The problem with ISS is, other then being a useful space laboratory, there isn't actually much potential of development because there is no possibility of finding some type of useful resource from the environment it is in.
The moon - not so much. I'd be interested to know if there have been any geological surveys that have worked out what sort of minerals we could expect to find deposited there, since that would play a significant role in determining how hard building a colony would be. If it were possible to get even basic resources for construction from there, then we might be able to seriously consider working out if you can technically grow things like crops. If anything, it would be a radical lesson in what our food crops actually need at the bare minimum to grow.
This article is from 1992, but
The lunar surface is rich in a material called ilmenite, containing iron oxide and titanium oxide. Heated to 800 degrees Centigrade (1,176 degrees Fahrenheit), ilmenite combines with hydrogen to produce iron, titanium, oxygen and steam. Dr. Lin said that the process also could be used to produce the water and oxygen needed for human survival.
.
The crushed lunar rocks would produce a fine, lightweight and extremely strong cement. And the left-over iron could be used to make reinforcing rods. Dr. Lin said it would be easy to draw out the rods in the low gravity of the moon's surface.
It sounds like what I want to hear, so why look for a more recent study?
The neutron spectrometer is also sensitive to iron (Fe) and titanium (Ti) in the lunar soil and rock. Maps made using this data show three provinces: mare basalts, rich in Fe and Ti; highland areas, poor in Fe and Ti; and the floor of the South Pole-Aitken basin and rims of the circular maria on the nearside which are intermediate in Fe and Ti concentration.
The gamma-ray spectrometer data shows that the rocks rich in potassium, rare earth elements and phosphorus, known as KREEP, are concentrated in the Mare Imbrium rim, the nearside maria and highlands near Imbrium and the Mare Ingenii South Pole-Aitken basin and are distributed at a lower level in the highlands. KREEP is rich in uranium and thorium and is thought to represent the last remaining melt after the lunar crust formed. The distribution seen by Lunar Prospector supports the idea that the impact which formed Mare Imbrium excavated KREEP-rich rocks and ejected them over the Moon and the South Pole-Aitken basin impact also exposed KREEP-rich material.
I say we go a mining!
EDIT: Actually that seems to indicate not only could we go there and build stuff from surface rocks but that if we dug a little we could have nuclear reactors powering the place. So fuck this photovoltaic bullshit.
Actually that seems to indicate not only could we go there and build stuff from surface rocks but that if we dug a little we could have nuclear reactors powering the place. So fuck this photovoltaic bullshit.
Picket that, hippies.
The cost of a reactor might still be a bit prohibitive. I can't see making the facilities to make the reactor; or just shipping the parts being very economical; but then I don't know the relative output of a proposed solar array.
Actually that seems to indicate not only could we go there and build stuff from surface rocks but that if we dug a little we could have nuclear reactors powering the place. So fuck this photovoltaic bullshit.
Picket that, hippies.
The cost of a reactor might still be a bit prohibitive. I can't see making the facilities to make the reactor; or just shipping the parts being very economical; but then I don't know the relative output of a proposed solar array.
Man it's the moon! To hell with all this safety bullshit. Let's just drop a big pil of enriched uranium on one side of the planet and call it the "hot hemisphere".
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I really think that all the money should be spent driving down launch costs. Once that happens, anything else would be pretty easy.
The Orion (super-keen replacement for the shuttle) should clear that up right quick.
They haven't built/launched it just yet so don't expect too much. The shuttle at some point was envisioned as a super economic replacement for every US launcher ever, capable of ~50 flights a year. Somehow that never panned out.
I really think that all the money should be spent driving down launch costs. Once that happens, anything else would be pretty easy.
The Orion (super-keen replacement for the shuttle) should clear that up right quick.
They haven't built/launched it just yet so don't expect too much. The shuttle at some point was envisioned as a super economic replacement for every US launcher ever, capable of ~50 flights a year. Somehow that never panned out.
On the plus side, Soyuz has pretty much told us that capsule craft built in the 50's can pretty much do that, which is why I'm a bit more optimistic.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
You can't just stop space programs though, because it doesn't work that way. You create social problems in your own country by not focusing on high technology industry, because the minds that are capable of working in it have nothing to aspire to or dream of. Most of the people here on these forums don't envisage a life spent working in Africa to 'fix' problems there.
Would there really be a huge brain drain if we scrapped or scaled down NASA? I would assume that there are still plenty of high-technology jobs both in private and public industry. Furthermore, I'm vaguely suspicious of the assertion that the spin-off technologies that would come from a moon base couldn't be independently researched, because the best and the brightest can only be lured in with promises of awesome cool moon domes.
Finally, Africa won't be solved by spending loads of money on it, because loads of money tends to encourage inefficiency - and you wouldn't believe it but loads of money is what Africa really really doesn't need - it's why LiveAid failed spectacularly.
LiveAid failed spectacularly because the people administering the aid were incompetent, not because aid is futile.
Africa will only really be solved by multiple, cheap, small scale efforts that sadly have to move slowly because of the social environment in which they live. Unless someone can show that we're really not achieving progress in Africa because capital for a specific project cannot be found, as opposed to capital for huge numbers of the same project, then I don't think we're really missing out on anything.
Well, you may have noticed that Oxfam uses money for a wide range of small-scale programs with immediate benefits. They install pipes to deliver clean drinking water, pay teachers, and distribute livestock to families, for example. The last time I looked at their site they were also giving small business loans. They're not stupid, and charities on the whole have gotten smarter about aid strategies. Simply pouring money into the hands of tyrants and drug lords failed in the past, and everyone realises it. The criticisms that "money won't solve anything" or "it's all eaten up by corruption" no longer hold.
And, of course, in this argument Africa is really just a generic stand-in for humanitarian efforts in general.
Furthermore, I'm vaguely suspicious of the assertion that the spin-off technologies that would come from a moon base couldn't be independently researched, because the best and the brightest can only be lured in with promises of awesome cool moon domes.
I'm sure some of the derivative technologies we got from the space program might have come about for other reasons; but there is probably something to be said for inspiring a bunch of engineers to be innovative with fanciful, pie-in-the-sky goals.
Despite the fact I think this moon mission is the wrong priority, with all the things that NASA has accomplished, I would think you would spare it the African poverty business. With the war in Iraq costing something like $6 billion dollars a month, totaling $350 billion or so thus far, I think you can find a much easier target to critique as far as money squandering is concerned. Shave a few percent off the annual defense budget and you've got NASA covered.
If NASA budgeted the manned mission to Mars at $450 billion dollars, and you're in Iraq for another year, then we could have theoretically sent humans to another planet instead of going to Iraq. That boggles my mind!
Posts
Is Mars a giant reactor? Or is it home to spindly brain-guys with bad immune systems? Or is it already being terraformed by little bugs? Or, could it be...
Mars Needs Chocos?
the moon is supposed to be a jumping off spor to get to mars
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Oh, i just assumed that they hit it all the time, just as with earth, but with no atmosphere they just peppered the thing instead of it burning up.
Ohhhh, Makes sense if we could figure out how to transport fuel effectively.
I'm curious as to how exactly you know this. You were a NASA engineer straight out of school? Or are you just being pessimistic?
As for the proverbial African problem:
*It's not going away anytime soon. You're free to send money and food and medical supplies and whatnot. In fact, please do. But know it's not getting fixed anytime soon.
*The last time there was a space race, we got all sorts of cool stuff.
*This space race will no doubt require research of methods to grow food in inhospitable conditions. Yeah, hydroponics, but I think we'll need more than that for a permanent moon base.
*What continent could really use a way to grow food in inhospitable conditions? Give you three guesses.
What was it about the work that killed your enthusiasm exactly? I would imagine it to be something really significant to make you quit NASA, a pinnacle of modern engineering and go into the private sector.
Thus the reasons behind the comments.
It all makes sense now.
Kinda what I was thinking. I have no personal experience with NASA but its a government agency. Stuff doesn't get done without too many people having their say, money gets wasted on bureaucratic stuff, etc.
Private sector is way beyond NASA as far as tech goes. Because there is more money there.
NASA's budget is fixed. The money they're allocating to start putting people on the moon doesn't leave much room for projects with actual scientific value. Like say better versions of hubble (which was already almost axed for this), or telescopes that can detect earth-size planets around other stars and infer the atmosphere (which *were* axed for this, last time I checked). Or we could pump the money into nanotechnology and medical research that will make access to space cheap (space elevator?) and allow humans to survive much better in low gravity, high radiation environments. They might even benefit people here on earth.
You know, things that might someday lead to actual colonization of real planets rather than 8 guys hunkered down underground several hundred thousand miles away 3 or 4 decades from now.
Theoretically we're doing this so we can gear up for mars. Mars is estimated to cost $450 billion+, and that's what NASA estimates not what it will wind up costing. That's assuming we ever figure out a way to keep radiation from killing everyone en route. Mars is a pipedream. There's no good reason to go there right now except Bush's vision of manifest destiny. Maybe we can come back in 100 years when space access is cheap and "because" is a good enough reason to pay.
Probably a new administration will fire Griffin and dump the whole project overboard. It's a nice way to get rid of the horribly expensive ($300 million per flight iirc) and dangerous shuttle, anyway.
Also totally illegal now.
But so goddamn awesome.
And suddenly the question of how space travel fits into the economy is answered.
space. pirates.
Well, that would be an argument against having fancy space programs in general, more than one particularly against a moon base.
You'd be suprised how far a little goes. Furthermore, not all aid is food or medical supplies, and charities are getting a lot smarter about doing work that keeps giving long after the initial donation.
Finally, Africa is not the only place in the world where humanitarian aid could do a lot of good. As long as there are people in desperate need we should question our other spending priorities. Yeah, a moon base is cool, but what good does cool do people without clean drinking water?
I realize that this is raining on the fun times of imagining space piracy. However, the space program is an archetypical example of something which is neat, but not terribly useful. Velcro is neat, but how much worse off would we be now had we never been to the moon? How much better off would even our own country's poor be had we instead put the money into social programs? It's a question that needs answering.
The by-products of space exploration go far beyond velcro. All those communication satellites up there didn't get there on their own.
Furthermore, without government mandated programs that require high technology, we deny ourselves spin off innovations which are a very well appreciated part of the cycle of R&D, in fact one of the reasons it's so damn useful. Valid points have already been made that solving the problem of outer space construction will no doubt lead to technological innovations that can be applied to other areas. But you won't get these by not building a moon base or by just trying to develop the technology for self-sufficient food production because you won't attract the type of innovative thinking that a project that really challenges our technological limits will.
Finally, Africa won't be solved by spending loads of money on it, because loads of money tends to encourage inefficiency - and you wouldn't believe it but loads of money is what Africa really really doesn't need - it's why LiveAid failed spectacularly. People have been developing grand plans for Africa for decades and none of them work because they fail as soon as anything deviates from the plan and tend to assume no corruption. Africa will only really be solved by multiple, cheap, small scale efforts that sadly have to move slowly because of the social environment in which they live. Unless someone can show that we're really not achieving progress in Africa because capital for a specific project cannot be found, as opposed to capital for huge numbers of the same project, then I don't think we're really missing out on anything.
I have a feeling this will end up being something like an ISS on the moon, which would really be unfortunate considering the state that project is in.
Depends. The problem with ISS is, other then being a useful space laboratory, there isn't actually much potential of development because there is no possibility of finding some type of useful resource from the environment it is in.
The moon - not so much. I'd be interested to know if there have been any geological surveys that have worked out what sort of minerals we could expect to find deposited there, since that would play a significant role in determining how hard building a colony would be. If it were possible to get even basic resources for construction from there, then we might be able to seriously consider working out if you can technically grow things like crops. If anything, it would be a radical lesson in what our food crops actually need at the bare minimum to grow.
Little house on the moon? I can see it now
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
This article is from 1992, but
It sounds like what I want to hear, so why look for a more recent study?
:?
http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/02/13/moon.php
Of which the summary of the scientific results included:
I say we go a mining!
EDIT: Actually that seems to indicate not only could we go there and build stuff from surface rocks but that if we dug a little we could have nuclear reactors powering the place. So fuck this photovoltaic bullshit.
Picket that, hippies.
The cost of a reactor might still be a bit prohibitive. I can't see making the facilities to make the reactor; or just shipping the parts being very economical; but then I don't know the relative output of a proposed solar array.
But i am still waiting for flying cars. We were promised flying cars by now.
(yes I know they have them, stupid FAA won't approve!)
Also, more money can be freed up from the US budget from the stupid stuff we do rather then the NASA budget. Bridge in Alaska anyone, or Iraq war
Librarians harbor a terrible secret. Find it.
Would there really be a huge brain drain if we scrapped or scaled down NASA? I would assume that there are still plenty of high-technology jobs both in private and public industry. Furthermore, I'm vaguely suspicious of the assertion that the spin-off technologies that would come from a moon base couldn't be independently researched, because the best and the brightest can only be lured in with promises of awesome cool moon domes.
LiveAid failed spectacularly because the people administering the aid were incompetent, not because aid is futile.
Well, you may have noticed that Oxfam uses money for a wide range of small-scale programs with immediate benefits. They install pipes to deliver clean drinking water, pay teachers, and distribute livestock to families, for example. The last time I looked at their site they were also giving small business loans. They're not stupid, and charities on the whole have gotten smarter about aid strategies. Simply pouring money into the hands of tyrants and drug lords failed in the past, and everyone realises it. The criticisms that "money won't solve anything" or "it's all eaten up by corruption" no longer hold.
And, of course, in this argument Africa is really just a generic stand-in for humanitarian efforts in general.
I'm sure some of the derivative technologies we got from the space program might have come about for other reasons; but there is probably something to be said for inspiring a bunch of engineers to be innovative with fanciful, pie-in-the-sky goals.
If NASA budgeted the manned mission to Mars at $450 billion dollars, and you're in Iraq for another year, then we could have theoretically sent humans to another planet instead of going to Iraq. That boggles my mind!