Martin
Established Member
The company I work for wrote some of the on-board software for the probe - so you might regard me as being rather biased (which I am :twisted, but I think there's lots of ancillary benefit to space exploration that people tend to forget when they see $3.2bn dollar headlines like this.
Apart from some of those already mentioned (velcro, teflon etc.), the space business is a worldwide industry that generates lots of economic benefit for the countries involved. The prime contractor for the probe was French, but they employed the services of around 40 sub-contractors throughout Europe to build it, including some within the UK. So even though European tax-money was used to build it, that investment comes back to the countries that invested, creating jobs and furthering skills and technological advances in those countries that spin off into other areas.
These space programmes often have University involvement, so its not just "big business" that benefits. For example, on Huygens, Kent University provided the Surface Science package for the probe.
That aside, I think the general point mentioned by Alf and others really holds true - its only by advancing and pursuing new boundaries that we really can advance. If we didn't, where would we be today? Would the car, jet airliner, etc. be in existance? At the end of the day it's just boundaries - hiking all the way back to Columbus and "the flat earth". Why should space be treated differently?
Martin.
Apart from some of those already mentioned (velcro, teflon etc.), the space business is a worldwide industry that generates lots of economic benefit for the countries involved. The prime contractor for the probe was French, but they employed the services of around 40 sub-contractors throughout Europe to build it, including some within the UK. So even though European tax-money was used to build it, that investment comes back to the countries that invested, creating jobs and furthering skills and technological advances in those countries that spin off into other areas.
These space programmes often have University involvement, so its not just "big business" that benefits. For example, on Huygens, Kent University provided the Surface Science package for the probe.
That aside, I think the general point mentioned by Alf and others really holds true - its only by advancing and pursuing new boundaries that we really can advance. If we didn't, where would we be today? Would the car, jet airliner, etc. be in existance? At the end of the day it's just boundaries - hiking all the way back to Columbus and "the flat earth". Why should space be treated differently?
Martin.