Thanks for the explanation. However, I believe you and I aren't discussing the same thing. I do agree with your explanation of Newtonian physics though.

If you don't mind elaborating on what I've said incorrectly, I'd appreciate it so I can edit my comment. :)

Imagine a cinder block covered in 6 inches of compacted sand. You shoot it, and the bullet dissipates most of its energy hitting the sand. Now imagine a cinder block covered in 6 inches of loose sand just floating around it and barely touching it. You shoot it, and the bullet goes through most of the sand and hits the core of the cinder block, visibly moving it with all the energy.

Thank you very much, I will use this from now on.

How do you guys get around the paywall? Am I being unreasonable for not wanting to have to pay for a subscription?

Again, I'm amazed that you're on the space subreddit. Habitable planets? Is that the only purpose for innovating in any form of space age technology? It is most definitely an epic failure of imagination to assume (as you said, "all that is left") that space has no other practical purpose or benefit. I'm not even going to start listing them. If you don't have an idea what they could be, it won't even make sense to you.

I run a design and engineering firm, I am an investor, and sit on an incubator board to provide funding to new medtech startups. I've bet on many, many companies over the years, and only a few make it, but I've learned two things in the last 35 years. One: Failure and improvement can lead to riches, and Two: I've always failed to predict where tech goes, but it has always been better than what I anticipated.

What statement am I defending? I think you're lost. I'm responding to the person who says that aerospace contractors are the only winners here. That's just factually completely wrong.

With regards to the statement about the need to compete in space: Historically, in the context of developing the next generation/era of technologies (agriculture, horse riding, archery, sailing, the whole industrial revolution, technological revolution, information age, and now, the space age), countries that don't invest in gaining the knowledge and innovation in that technological age tend to get left behind. By pushing to be competitive with the leaders in the field, it forces advancements on a quicker timeline, and benefits everyone.

Edit: You're just going to downvote me without any counter-argument?

>But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

Amazing. You're in the Space subreddit, and you think that all of our exploration has no practical benefit? I'm sure Krog the caveman said the exact same thing 10,000 years ago when his buddy Glab started building the first raft/boat for fishing in the river and getting to the other side.

You can say that about a lot of things, like, "The winners are the internet providers who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt." but you're using the internet right now, so clearly the internet is not a publicity stunt. You already use GPS everywhere you go. Who the hell do you think set up those satellites in orbit? Clearly GPS is not a publicity stunt.

The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers. That's not how the world works.

I'm sure the speculative idea of the atom was useful long before we could test/prove its validity or existence. Creating frameworks for understanding the world around us is useful, whether right or wrong.