There is no way to go very far in the solar system. Current physics knowledge tells us. The current physics theory is not the ultimate theory, and a new one may allow us to go further in space(we can dream), but in this case, you need first to fund theoretical physics before NASA to discover this new theory.
Please define 'colonize space'. If you speak about staying within the solar system, that is something we could envisage today. If you want to discuss colonizing extra worlds, well that's another story and this is not even possible today, with the physics knowledge we have.
Actually, you missed totally my point: before being able to build or engineer anything, you need the related theoretical developments.
I am not saying that one should not fund NASA, I am saying that one should not only fund NASA (as those theoretical developments are not searched for there).
I disagree. Take general relativity: without the theoretical developments of Einstein in 1915, no GPS today. At some point, you need theory. And the applications of theory may be conceivable decades later.
PS: just to be clear: I am definitely not against funding NASA. I am saying that for colonizing the space, you need more than NASA with respect to the scientific context of today.
There is no way to go very far in the solar system. Current physics knowledge tells us. The current physics theory is not the ultimate theory, and a new one may allow us to go further in space(we can dream), but in this case, you need first to fund theoretical physics before NASA to discover this new theory.
what are you talking about?
Please define 'colonize space'. If you speak about staying within the solar system, that is something we could envisage today. If you want to discuss colonizing extra worlds, well that's another story and this is not even possible today, with the physics knowledge we have.
" not even possible today" well yeah thats why they need funding are u high m8
Actually, you missed totally my point: before being able to build or engineer anything, you need the related theoretical developments.
I am not saying that one should not fund NASA, I am saying that one should not only fund NASA (as those theoretical developments are not searched for there).
We do have some of them but innovation happens best when actually trying to do it
I disagree. Take general relativity: without the theoretical developments of Einstein in 1915, no GPS today. At some point, you need theory. And the applications of theory may be conceivable decades later.
PS: just to be clear: I am definitely not against funding NASA. I am saying that for colonizing the space, you need more than NASA with respect to the scientific context of today.