PDA

View Full Version : one giant step backwards


stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 04:18 PM
obama grounds nasa plans for moonshot. now he is a traitor to all humanity.
the worthless stimulus givaway would have paid for a hundred landings and advanced tech.

noonereal
01-28-2010, 04:20 PM
not sure what you are referring to. Do you have alink to a story or a fuller explanation?
thanks

Boreas
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
not sure what you are referring to. Do you have alink to a story or a fuller explanation?
thanks

Here you go, Noone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6146453.shtml

So, what do you think? Should we string the bastard up?

Man, some people have totally lost all sense of proportionality around here.

John

stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 04:29 PM
give me a break we all knew he would do this the report i saw was on our local news i will look around for more info after the national news tonite. my guess is the man in the moon better learn chinese. what a waste!

stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 04:33 PM
Here you go, Noone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6146453.shtml

So, what do you think? Should we string the bastard up?

Man, some people have totally lost all sense of proportionality around here.

John

read it what a fucking joke. we used to lead the world in the 60s i guess your happy to be the worlds janitor now. i fear for our childrens future and our nation

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 04:49 PM
obama grounds nasa plans for moonshot. now he is a traitor to all humanity.
the worthless stimulus givaway would have paid for a hundred landings and advanced tech.

This will come as a shock to most of you, but I agree...

Sorta. I wouldn't characterize it the way you have, but it is a real loss. I agree with some of your reasons - leading the world is a worthwhile thing to do, and the cost of these missions vs. the scientific benefit makes it an easy call for the wealthiest nation on Earth. That alone is reason to do it.

But there is more to this Moon deal than they let on. They're after helium 3 which may make nuclear fusion a viable energy source. Still many years away, but we need to be working on ambitious projects exactly like this to assure our place in the world far down the road.

I do not agree with your assessment of the Stimulus package, however. I believe it saved many jobs and things would be far worse than they are if we hadn't done it.

Take care,

Ed

stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 04:58 PM
not as many jobs as would have been created by new discoveries and advanced tech. also this sends a message to the school kids that we are turning our backs on the future

noonereal
01-28-2010, 05:02 PM
Here you go, Noone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6146453.shtml

So, what do you think? Should we string the bastard up?

Man, some people have totally lost all sense of proportionality around here.

John

Thank you John

Iam very pro R&D of any sort and think we need to explore space so my first thought is that I disagree with this. I need to find more info as to what the objectives of these new moon shot were to be and also what the artical means by "humans and robots the chance to explore Earth's orbit."

noonereal
01-28-2010, 05:03 PM
read it what a fucking joke. we used to lead the world in the 60s i guess your happy to be the worlds janitor now. i fear for our childrens future and our nation

you figure we picked up the bucket when Obama became president?

noonereal
01-28-2010, 05:05 PM
But there is more to this Moon deal than they let on. They're after helium 3 which may make nuclear fusion a viable energy source. Still many years away, but we need to be working on ambitious projects exactly like this to assure our place in the world far down the road.



thanks Ed. That is the kind of info I am looking for.

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 05:06 PM
I need to find more info as to what the objectives of these new moon shot were...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

finnbow
01-28-2010, 05:35 PM
Hell, I'm an engineer and scientist and I think I agree that in the current budget climate we really don't need to go the moon. Been there, done that. I think the budgetary problems in this country are existential, whereas going to the moon (again) isn't. That said, equal cuts should be made elsewhere as well in nonessential programs.

With regard to fusion, I'm kind of skeptical (and my brother has a PhD in plasma physics and has been working on fusion for over 30 years). We're so far away from a controlled fusion reaction (with a net energy gain) and we likely won't ever get there (at least in our lifetimes). Furthermore, the notion of mining Helium-3 off the moon to facilitate fusion research is ridiculous on its face.

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 05:57 PM
not as many jobs as would have been created by new discoveries and advanced tech. also this sends a message to the school kids that we are turning our backs on the future

How so? Technology can't be advanced in other ways, we have to send another crew to play golf on the moon to advance science? There are no ways we can build a better future by spending the resources here on earth?:confused:

Just a couple thoughts your post brought to mind....

Dave

finnbow
01-28-2010, 06:58 PM
not as many jobs as would have been created by new discoveries and advanced tech.

Honestly, I don't buy the spinoff argument. Plus, I find it ironic for one to criticize government waste, incompetence, etc., but then argue in favor of outrageously expensive government programs based upon the possibility of "pennies on a dollar " returns on spinoff technologies.:confused:

P.S. I don't like Tang and I think our republic would do just fine without it.:D

Boreas
01-28-2010, 07:22 PM
How so? Technology can't be advanced in other ways, we have to send another crew to play golf on the moon to advance science? There are no ways we can build a better future by spending the resources here on earth?:confused:

But Dave, all those calendars, lunch boxes and coffee mugs that'll never get made now.

What a wasted opportunity! (For the Chinese)

John

Boreas
01-28-2010, 07:23 PM
Honestly, I don't buy the spinoff argument. Plus, I find it ironic for one to criticize government waste, incompetence, etc., but then argue in favor of outrageously expensive government programs based upon the possibility of "pennies on a dollar " returns on spinoff technologies.:confused:

P.S. I don't like Tang and I think our republic would do just fine without it.:D

Ah, but Velcro!

John

finnbow
01-28-2010, 07:35 PM
Ah, but Velcro!

John

The conventional wisdom is that Velcro was a DoD spinoff technology. It was actually invented by a Swiss fellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro) on his own in 1941.

FWIW, I personally think the whole spinoff argument was likely developed by the "military-industrial complex" in an effort to garner support for expensive endeavors for which conventional benefit/cost analyses didn't fully pan out for them.

Sandy G
01-28-2010, 07:36 PM
From what I've seen, read & heard, the dream of "Star Trek" interplanetary travel will remain just that-a dream. We CAN'T go fast enuff to decently make a stab at the tremendous distances involved. Mars is what, an 18 month round trip ? And that's about the same sort of thing as toodlin' over to yr next door neighbors' house, relatively speaking. The next stars are several light-years away...And that's assuming we could travel at the speed of light-Which we can't. Aren't even gonna come close. Even if we COULD somehow build the awfulest hot-rod spaceship that would make Cap'n Kirk green w/envy, there's the small matter of physial laws that state that as a body approaches the speed of light, it gets INFINITELY heavier & shorter... Even the Gambinos can't break THOSE laws. We may, some day, get to communicate w/another species from another planet, but that will prolly be about the best we can do. Personally, I wish it WASN'T like that....

Writewing
01-28-2010, 07:45 PM
I think we have far too many things to do on this planet, lets fix this one before we ruxh to leave it. There is plenty of things to work on based on what we have already discovered.

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 08:06 PM
Math isn't my thing, but I'll give this a shot.

Federal budget 2009: $3,550,000,000,000
Nasa budget 2008: $17,300,000,000

Okay, if I recall correctly, to find a percentage you divide the little number by the big number.

17,300,000,000/3,550,000,000,000=0.00487323944%

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Maybe my numbers are off. But I can't find any info that says anything else. NASA is less than 1% of the federal budget. I don't give a crap if they don't create jobs, or lead to new cookware. It's worth it just to discover. 1 flippin' percent. Too much to ask to feed human curiosity.

That's just sad. We could cut that much out of the military budget and not even notice it. Hell, even the trivial savings in Medicade that we would have seen from the health care deal would be more than that. Of course, we won't see that at all now. So we're left to cut NASA because that is the 1% that will put us in the black. Please. You have to be kidding me.

stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 08:18 PM
Honestly, I don't buy the spinoff argument. Plus, I find it ironic for one to criticize government waste, incompetence, etc., but then argue in favor of outrageously expensive government programs based upon the possibility of "pennies on a dollar " returns on spinoff technologies.:confused:

P.S. I don't like Tang and I think our republic would do just fine without it.:D

But Dave, all those calendars, lunch boxes and coffee mugs that'll never get made now.

What a wasted opportunity! (For the Chinese)

John

Ah, but Velcro!

John

The conventional wisdom is that Velcro was a DoD spinoff technology. It was actually invented by a Swiss fellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro) on his own in 1941.

FWIW, I personally think the whole spinoff argument was likely developed by the "military-industrial complex" in an effort to garner support for expensive endeavors for which conventional benefit/cost analyses didn't fully pan out for them.

i never get tired of the self loving and self important leftwing commies. why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies and that way you can make friends with your foriegn buddies who will surely save us all

stereocuuple
01-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Math isn't my thing, but I'll give this a shot.

Federal budget 2009: $3,550,000,000,000
Nasa budget 2008: $17,300,000,000

Okay, if I recall correctly, to find a percentage you divide the little number by the big number.

17,300,000,000/3,550,000,000,000=0.00487323944%

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Maybe my numbers are off. But I can't find any info that says anything else. NASA is less than 1% of the federal budget. I don't give a crap if they don't create jobs, or lead to new cookware. It's worth it just to discover. 1 flippin' percent. Too much to ask to feed human curiosity.

That's just sad. We could cut that much out of the military budget and not even notice it. Hell, even the trivial savings in Medicade that we would have seen from the health care deal would be more than that. Of course, we won't see that at all now. So we're left to cut NASA because that is the 1% that will put us in the black. Please. You have to be kidding me.

i agree however this isint about $$$ its about putting the nation in the backseat. my parents genaration would never have done this. america is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. we did not get here by placing 2nd and we wont stay here that way either. maby obama should give advice to olympic athleats to just slow down and let the other guys win

Boreas
01-28-2010, 08:54 PM
i never get tired of the self loving and self important leftwing commies. why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies and that way you can make friends with your foriegn buddies who will surely save us all

My new avatar works!

John

finnbow
01-28-2010, 09:51 PM
Math isn't my thing, but I'll give this a shot.

Federal budget 2009: $3,550,000,000,000
Nasa budget 2008: $17,300,000,000

Okay, if I recall correctly, to find a percentage you divide the little number by the big number.

17,300,000,000/3,550,000,000,000=0.00487323944%

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Maybe my numbers are off. But I can't find any info that says anything else. NASA is less than 1% of the federal budget. I don't give a crap if they don't create jobs, or lead to new cookware. It's worth it just to discover. 1 flippin' percent. Too much to ask to feed human curiosity.

While your math is fine, if every programs' advocates made the same argument, no cuts in the budget could ever be made. Just like the saying
“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that man behind the tree,” a similar statement could be made about budget cuts.

westgate
01-28-2010, 09:57 PM
http://images.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2003/10/02/thursday2/story.jpg
"hmmm, one of my flock has paid attention.
mega dittoes from me and mr. snerdley to you, sir."

finnbow
01-28-2010, 09:59 PM
i agree however this isint about $$$ its about putting the nation in the backseat. my parents genaration would never have done this. america is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. we did not get here by placing 2nd and we wont stay here that way either. maby obama should give advice to olympic athleats to just slow down and let the other guys win

Your parents' generation didn't have a total national debt of:
http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz299/finnbow/debtiv.gif

As for being the greatest nation on earth and not wanting to place 2nd, geopolitics and establishing national priorities aren't just silly games designed to stroke your ego. Without question, we are the greatest nation on earth in one key area - size of national debt.

Boreas
01-28-2010, 10:06 PM
http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz299/finnbow/debtiv.gif

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

John

d-ray657
01-28-2010, 10:14 PM
From what I've seen, read & heard, the dream of "Star Trek" interplanetary travel will remain just that-a dream. We CAN'T go fast enuff to decently make a stab at the tremendous distances involved. Mars is what, an 18 month round trip ? And that's about the same sort of thing as toodlin' over to yr next door neighbors' house, relatively speaking. The next stars are several light-years away...And that's assuming we could travel at the speed of light-Which we can't. Aren't even gonna come close. Even if we COULD somehow build the awfulest hot-rod spaceship that would make Cap'n Kirk green w/envy, there's the small matter of physial laws that state that as a body approaches the speed of light, it gets INFINITELY heavier & shorter... Even the Gambinos can't break THOSE laws. We may, some day, get to communicate w/another species from another planet, but that will prolly be about the best we can do. Personally, I wish it WASN'T like that....

From what my son tells me, I am nowhere near up on this, we have a better chance of entering another dimension than another galaxy.

Regards,

D-Ray

westgate
01-28-2010, 10:21 PM
From what I've seen, read & heard, the dream of "Star Trek" interplanetary travel will remain just that-a dream.
.
.
.
Personally, I wish it WASN'T like that....
my sentiments too. after growing up on a tv 'diet' of star trek, star wars, etc, it's always been my dream that we'd get to see some serious space travel in my lifetime.
but without a 'warp' or whatever you wanna call it, drive, we ain't going nowhere, maybe mars eventually, but that's about it.

and that greatly saddens me.

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 10:33 PM
I think we have far too many things to do on this planet, lets fix this one before we ruxh to leave it. There is plenty of things to work on based on what we have already discovered.

Agreed. +1.

And this coming from an amateur astronomer.

Dave

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 10:35 PM
i never get tired of the self loving and self important leftwing commies. why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies and that way you can make friends with your foriegn buddies who will surely save us all

Huh?:confused:

Dave

westgate
01-28-2010, 10:43 PM
"...why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies..."

huh. wonder how much i could get for it...

ebay! that's the ticket. it might sell there. maybe.

BlueStreak
01-28-2010, 10:53 PM
i never get tired of the self loving and self important leftwing commies. why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies and that way you can make friends with your foriegn buddies who will surely save us all


Why don't you gather up all of your guns and a pallet of Spam and go hide in your bunker until we tell you it's safe to come out?:rolleyes:

Dave

finnbow
01-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Why dont you guys just sell the U.S.A to our enemies

In case you slept through the past 8 years, your boy Dubya pretty much did sell our country to the Chinese. How else do you think he financed his tax cut and two wars offbudget.:confused:

BTW, here's a little known secret: the Excellence in Broadcasting Network really isn't all that excellent.:D

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 11:25 PM
While your math is fine, if every programs' advocates made the same argument, no cuts in the budget could ever be made. Just like the saying
“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that man behind the tree,” a similar statement could be made about budget cuts.

I hear you and there is no denying it is a fact. I'll admit I'm a true believer when it comes to NASA and space exploration. It is such a fantastic achievement - it's amazing we can do what we can do. There are few things in the budget that do what it does. Not it's primary reason for being, and not what it does all the time, but occasionally, it serves only to inspire awe and expand the fundamental understanding of who we are, how we got here and what this whole crazy business is about.

I hear you, but I'm not listening. I'd like my 1% spent on NASA.

And there is that pesky issue of the math that I keep coming back to. You guys have to be sick of this. If you want to save money in a way that will make a difference there are only a few places to look. Medicade/Medicare, Military, and Social Security. Until you address those you're nibbling around the edges of the problem.

Fast_Eddie
01-28-2010, 11:28 PM
Your parents' generation didn't have a total national debt of:
http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz299/finnbow/debtiv.gif

As for being the greatest nation on earth and not wanting to place 2nd, geopolitics and establishing national priorities aren't just silly games designed to stroke your ego. Without question, we are the greatest nation on earth in one key area - size of national debt.

So if we eliminate NASA entirely, that will pay the debt in a mere 711 years.

noonereal
01-29-2010, 12:03 AM
i agree however this isint about $$$ its about putting the nation in the backseat. my parents genaration would never have done this. america is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. we did not get here by placing 2nd and we wont stay here that way either. maby obama should give advice to olympic athleats to just slow down and let the other guys win

:D

Remember the old days Eric, when I was the only one that used to piss you off?

Times have changed.

merrylander
01-29-2010, 07:24 AM
Funny, near as I recall it was/is Walmart, Mattel, and many othre corporations that put the For Sale sign smack dab in the middle of the U.S. of A. I only own 4.5 acres of it and it is not for sale.

Exit left humming Jingo Bells, Jingo Bells, da de da de de

finnbow
01-29-2010, 08:41 AM
And there is that pesky issue of the math that I keep coming back to. You guys have to be sick of this. If you want to save money in a way that will make a difference there are only a few places to look. Medicade/Medicare, Military, and Social Security. Until you address those you're nibbling around the edges of the problem.

True enough. I guess part of my problem with NASA is their misplaced priorities. They appeared willing to let the Hubbell go dark instead of spending a relative pittance in keeping it going. Also, they put all their eggs into the space shuttle basket (while it aged into oblivion) and damn near lost the capacity to do relatively inexpensive satellite launch (which the Chinese and French do routinely). Now they want to spend a shitload to put a man on the moon (again), when we did that 40 years ago.

From everything I've read, manned spaced flight isn't the future of space exploration in the extra-orbital arena. It's too expensive, risky, and the constraints of keeping men alive and well in space actually limit the accomplishment of mission. I believe NASA simply needs to rationalize their program. As stated in the cited article, the priorities should be heavy rocket launch and a cost-effective "space-taxi" to replace the expensive and outdated shuttle. Why should we focus our resources on going to the moon again when we can barely launch orbital satellites and don't have a viable way to get people to and from the Int'l. Space Station. If it's simply so we can shout, "We're number 1, we're number 1," at the same time as our space infrastructure falls apart, count me out.

Sandy G
01-29-2010, 09:02 AM
Yeah- I never figgered out why Nasa just kinda threw the Hubble "Under the Bus" when they'd previously spent so much & risked so many lives to keep it viable...

noonereal
01-29-2010, 10:00 AM
outdated shuttle. Why should we focus our resources on going to the moon again when we can barely launch orbital satellites and don't have a viable way to get people to and from the Int'l. Space Station. If it's simply so we can shout, "We're number 1, we're number 1," at the same time as our space infrastructure falls apart, count me out.

I think we need to colorize the moon and Mars and the way to start is to go back to the moon and stay there.
Man has the potential to become immortal as a species and colonizing other planets is a natural progression.

merrylander
01-29-2010, 10:06 AM
I think we need to colorize the moon and Mars and the way to start is to go back to the moon and stay there.
Man has the potential to become immortal as a species and colonizing other planets is a natural progression.

Isn't screwing up Mother Earth enough of a legacy? :rolleyes:

Mind you there are a number of people I would relish sending to Mars on a one way trip.

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:15 AM
I think we need to colorize the moon and Mars and the way to start is to go back to the moon and stay there.
Man has the potential to become immortal as a species and colonizing other planets is a natural progression.

Man, I know it sounds crazy, but I completely agree.

Okay, jumping off the deep end a little here. Don't follow if you like, I understand.

Something- fate, chance, God, whatever you call it- put us here. And we have the ability and desire to go "out there". I'm not talking 5 or 10 years here, but a thousand- or ten thousand. So keep that in mind. Say we go to the Moon. People live there. We go to Mars. And who knows where else? Generations growing up on Mars in lower gravity, and a lot of other things, but let's start with gravity. What happens after a hundred generations? Do they get really tall, with thinner bones? Do they eventually require less oxygen to live. So what happens after a thousand generations. Ten thousand. Are they still human, or will humanity have given birth to actual Martians?

Might one day the Earth be destroied and long forgotten? Perhaps in the far distant future the Martians will tell stories of Earth. Some will scoff and say "that's just a fairy tail". Just imagine it. Earth and humanity giving birth to new races all over out solar system- maybe even beyond one day.

I know, I know. We might have to pay taxes or cut some pet military project. But put that out of your mind for one minute and just - imagine.

finnbow
01-29-2010, 10:22 AM
Man has the potential to become immortal ...

:confused: Since when?

finnbow
01-29-2010, 10:24 AM
Man, I know it sounds crazy, but I completely agree.

Okay, jumping off the deep end a little here. Don't follow if you like, I understand.

Something- fate, chance, God, whatever you call it- put us here. And we have the ability and desire to go "out there". I'm not talking 5 or 10 years here, but a thousand- or ten thousand. So keep that in mind. Say we go to the Moon. People live there. We go to Mars. And who knows where else? Generations growing up on Mars in lower gravity, and a lot of other things, but let's start with gravity. What happens after a hundred generations? Do they get really tall, with thinner bones? Do they eventually require less oxygen to live. So what happens after a thousand generations. Ten thousand. Are they still human, or will humanity have given birth to actual Martians?

Might one day the Earth be destroied and long forgotten? Perhaps in the far distant future the Martians will tell stories of Earth. Some will scoff and say "that's just a fairy tail". Just imagine it. Earth and humanity giving birth to new races all over out solar system- maybe even beyond one day.

I know, I know. We might have to pay taxes or cut some pet military project. But put that out of your mind for one minute and just - imagine.

Damn. Do they have medical marijuana in Colorado? :D

merrylander
01-29-2010, 10:52 AM
One day when our sun goes nova not only earth, but all the sister planets will disappear. Good riddance.

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 10:56 AM
Damn. Do they have medical marijuana in Colorado? :D

They say there are more medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado than Starbucks. And I can tell you, there are a lot of Starbucks.

One day when our sun goes nova not only earth, but all the sister planets will disappear. Good riddance.

We have a very, very long time. I'm not sure that the end of the Sun is the end of what we now call humanity. Though it won't be anything we would recognize today. Complex life comes and goes on this planet. So far, we're the only ones who have developed the ability to survive the next mass extintion event, if we chose to.

Boreas
01-29-2010, 11:17 AM
We have a very, very long time. I'm not sure that the end of the Sun is the end of what we now call humanity. Though it won't be anything we would recognize today.

Life would be finished in this solar system. We need a sun as an energy source.

Complex life comes and goes on this planet. So far, we're the only ones who have developed the ability to survive the next mass extintion event, if we chose to.

You mean the next one after the current one?

John

BlueStreak
01-29-2010, 11:34 AM
I think we need to colorize the moon and Mars and the way to start is to go back to the moon and stay there.
Man has the potential to become immortal as a species and colonizing other planets is a natural progression.


I think we should colonize the moon, and then tell the wingnuts they can live there "tax free". Once they're all up there-------Push the Red Button,....He,he,he,he.....:p

Dave

BlueStreak
01-29-2010, 11:37 AM
Life would be finished in this solar system. We need a sun as an energy source.



You mean the next one after the current one?

John


Oh, there you go pushing solar energy again! When are you and Al Gore gonna realize coal and petroluem are the only viable energy sources? You're so thick headed! Damnit, John.:D

Dave

Boreas
01-29-2010, 11:40 AM
Oh, there you go pushing solar energy again! When are you and Al Gore gonna realize coal and petroluem are the only viable energy sources? You're so thick headed! Damnit, John.:D

Dave

Haven't you heard? Big Al and I just incorporated as as Sol Unlimited. We own that sucker! Gonna license sunlight! ;)

John

PS: Maybe that should be SOL Unlimited. :)

Fast_Eddie
01-29-2010, 11:53 AM
Life would be finished in this solar system. We need a sun as an energy source.

It's a big universe.

You mean the next one after the current one?

Can't say. Though the answer to either is "yes", as I said, if we chose to. Not sure global warming will be a mass extintion event though. Who knows? But it seems likely it's just going to kill a lot of people and cost us a lot of money down the road.

westgate
01-29-2010, 11:54 AM
I think we should colonize the moon, and then tell the wingnuts they can live there "tax free". Once they're all up there-------Push the Red Button,....He,he,he,he.....:p

Dave
i always thought greenland would be a good place for them. :D

or some 'heartland' midwest state (which they sometimes seem to claim as 'their america') and 'rope' it off.

noonereal
01-29-2010, 11:59 AM
Isn't screwing up Mother Earth enough of a legacy? :rolleyes:

Mind you there are a number of people I would relish sending to Mars on a one way trip.

rotflmao

your funniest post to date

good job ;)

noonereal
01-29-2010, 12:06 PM
:confused: Since when?

well I am not alone in this belief

Stephen Hawking feels that if we can survive the next two hundred years or so we very well might

I don't see evolving a colony on Mars much different than evolving one on North America was.

noonereal
01-29-2010, 12:11 PM
.



We have a very, very long time. I'm not sure that the end of the Sun is the end of what we now call humanity.

There is no reason man would not be able to move to a different galaxy. Frankly it is the nature of life.

Boreas
01-29-2010, 12:22 PM
Not sure global warming will be a mass extintion event though. Who knows? But it seems likely it's just going to kill a lot of people and cost us a lot of money down the road.

It's undeniable that through pollution, habitat loss and climate change there has been a huge increase in the number of species going extinct right now. There are quite a few scientists who feel this qualifies as a "mass extinction" comparable to or even worse than the Cambrian one.

John

Boreas
01-29-2010, 12:25 PM
i always thought greenland would be a good place for them. :D

Give it a little time. Greenland may at last live up to Leif Erikson's sales pitch. ;)

John

Boreas
01-29-2010, 12:28 PM
I don't see evolving a colony on Mars much different than evolving one on North America was.

Wow! Really, Noone? We can't breathe the atmosphere on Mars and the temperature extremes there are lethal to our species. It'll take a little more than cutting down a few trees to build a stockade to make Mars moderately habitable for us.

John

merrylander
01-29-2010, 01:30 PM
well I am not alone in this belief

Stephen Hawking feels that if we can survive the next two hundred years or so we very well might

I don't see evolving a colony on Mars much different than evolving one on North America was.


Shoot they had air they could breath and all sorts of fish and game, yet they still screwed up Jamestown.:rolleyes:

Boreas
01-29-2010, 01:37 PM
Shoot they had air they could breath and all sorts of fish and game, yet they still screwed up Jamestown.:rolleyes:

And Roanoke and Greenland and Vinland and.........

John

piece-itpete
02-01-2010, 11:06 AM
With regard to fusion, I'm kind of skeptical (and my brother has a PhD in plasma physics and has been working on fusion for over 30 years). We're so far away from a controlled fusion reaction (with a net energy gain) and we likely won't ever get there (at least in our lifetimes). Furthermore, the notion of mining Helium-3 off the moon to facilitate fusion research is ridiculous on its face.

Really, unless we develop fusion or some other source of huge power we will use up Earth like a tank of gas, with no where to go.


FWIW, I personally think the whole spinoff argument was likely developed by the "military-industrial complex" in an effort to garner support for expensive endeavors for which conventional benefit/cost analyses didn't fully pan out for them.

The space program pays in spades. "It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on R and D in the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth.."


http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

The real question is, what HASN'T been touched by the space program?

There is so much. We don't NEED intergalactic travel, at least not yet, there is VAST wealth, untold wealth, beyond belief, there to picked up up off the ground after a fashion right in our own system.

And life on Earth is far more fragile than most realise, a nuke war a'la the cold war would be considered very minor when dealing with planetary and/or system masses and explosions.

So if we eliminate NASA entirely, that will pay the debt in a mere 711 years.

Lmao! And that's assuming the Dems and Reps AREN'T in power (they increase spending :) )

Lets vote for the L5 fanatics :D Or LaRouche Dems! hehe.

One day when our sun goes nova not only earth, but all the sister planets will disappear. Good riddance.

Rob, you are officially crowned the king of one liners. Lolol!

Pete

BlueStreak
02-01-2010, 11:17 AM
Wow! Really, Noone? We can't breathe the atmosphere on Mars and the temperature extremes there are lethal to our species. It'll take a little more than cutting down a few trees to build a stockade to make Mars moderately habitable for us.

John


Martian global warming is a myth. More of Al Gores bullcrap.

Dave

finnbow
02-01-2010, 12:11 PM
Really, unless we develop fusion or some other source of huge power we will use up Earth like a tank of gas, with no where to go.
Perhaps. However, having read quite a bit about fusion, including tours of Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, and having a brother in the field, I'm remain skeptical that fusion is the answer (particularly if it involves mining unobtanium on the moon).


The space program pays in spades. "It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on R and D in the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth.." First, consider the source. It's a pro-space website. Second, even if there is a 7:1 payback on space R&D, R&D isn't a big part of the whole budget. If R&D is less than 1/7 of the program's overall cost, then the overall benefit/cost ratio is less than 1.0. Lastly, how much R&D is needed to accomplish what we already accomplished over 40 years ago?

Boreas
02-01-2010, 12:17 PM
Lastly, how much R&D is needed to accomplish what we already accomplished over 40 years ago?

It's all sizzle from a half century old steak. NASA is trying to justify its budget with a program that will have everyone glued to their TV sets. If it's so important for us to explore the moon for Ice 9 we can do more cheaply and as well with "Rovers" the way we do on Mars.

John

finnbow
02-01-2010, 12:31 PM
It's all sizzle from a half century old steak. NASA is trying to justify its budget with a program that will have everyone glued to their TV sets. If it's so important for us to explore the moon for Ice 9 we can do more cheaply and as well with "Rovers" the way we do on Mars.

John

Agreed. NASA's budget is actually supposed to increase slightly, but focus on cooperative efforts with the private sector for space launch capabilities with companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. Maybe not as much "eye-candy" nor opportunities for shouting "We're No. 1," but probably a better expenditure of resources.

piece-itpete
02-01-2010, 12:42 PM
Perhaps. However, having read quite a bit about fusion, including tours of Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, and having a brother in the field, I'm remain skeptical that fusion is the answer (particularly if it involves mining unobtanium on the moon).

First, consider the source. It's a pro-space website. Second, even if there is a 7:1 payback on space R&D, R&D isn't a big part of the whole budget. If R&D is less than 1/7 of the program's overall cost, then the overall benefit/cost ratio is less than 1.0. Lastly, how much R&D is needed to accomplish what we already accomplished over 40 years ago?

There's a lot of backup to the statement that the space program is one of the best investments we make.

Agreed on fusion to a degree, heck it was right around the corner - in 1973.

But perhaps if we spent say 750 billion on it we might make some headway.

Pete

finnbow
02-01-2010, 12:51 PM
There's a lot of backup to the statement that the space program is one of the best investments we make

I don't necessarily disagree, nor am I a technology luddite by any stretch of the imagination. It's just my view that NASA needs to rationalize its budget in favor of activities that will better serve the nation. Going back to the moon might be a patriotic shot-in-the-arm, but would result in other more viable programs not being funded (e.g., allowing Hubble to go dark). Plus it's just so '60's. It would be kinda like RCA spending a lot of money to reintroduce the 8-track tape as the format of the future.:D

noonereal
02-01-2010, 01:46 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, nor am I a technology luddite by any stretch of the imagination. It's just my view that NASA needs to rationalize its budget in favor of activities that will better serve the nation. Going back to the moon might be a patriotic shot-in-the-arm, but would result in other more viable programs not being funded (e.g., allowing Hubble to go dark). Plus it's just so '60's. It would be kinda like RCA spending a lot of money to reintroduce the 8-track tape as the format of the future.:D

From what I read over the weekend NASA (Obie) has scraped going to the moon in favor of setting the groundwork for going to Mars.

finnbow
02-01-2010, 01:53 PM
FYI, coming live to a computer screen near you is NASA's press briefing on their FY 2011 budget request. (3:00 pm EST, today)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201139.html

noonereal
02-01-2010, 01:59 PM
FYI, coming live to a computer screen near you is NASA's press briefing on their FY 2011 budget request. (3:00 pm EST, today)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201139.html

wow, you are good.;)

rickr15
02-01-2010, 02:12 PM
Agreed. NASA's budget is actually supposed to increase slightly, but focus on cooperative efforts with the private sector for space launch capabilities with companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. Maybe not as much "eye-candy" nor opportunities for shouting "We're No. 1," but probably a better expenditure of resources.

I believe we need a space program. 200 years ago they wouldn't have dreamed of flying across the ocean in a matter of hours. The idea of powered flight by man was considered preposterous unless your name was Da Vinci.

However the idea of letting the private sector acomlish this is just fine with me.
If a profit is to be made they will find a way to get there a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than if it's just scientists trying to learn new stuff.

noonereal
02-01-2010, 02:19 PM
If a profit is to be made they will find a way to get there a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than if it's just scientists trying to learn new stuff.

How do you figure?:confused:

You do know we went to the moon back when a computer was the size of an entire room? and we did it in a handful of years?

Your statement seems to fly in the face of fact or were you being factitious?

finnbow
02-01-2010, 02:21 PM
How do you figure?:confused:

You do know we went to the moon back when a computer was the size of an entire room? and we did it in a handful of years?

Your statement seems to fly in the face of fact or were you being factitious?

Actually, Defense satellites are now launched by private rockets.

piece-itpete
02-01-2010, 02:21 PM
From what I read over the weekend NASA (Obie) has scraped going to the moon in favor of setting the groundwork for going to Mars.

That would be Bush's doing :D

We have the station for a jumpoff. L5 again? :)


You do know we went to the moon back when a computer was the size of an entire room? and we did it in a handful of years?


It's amazing they made it there on that wish upon a shoestring. It's even more amazing they made it back!

Finn, I have no sound darndarndarn.

Pete

noonereal
02-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Actually, Defense satellites are now launched by private rockets.

do you also believe private industry will do it cheaper and faster?

noonereal
02-01-2010, 02:23 PM
Finn, I have no sound darndarndarn.

Pete

nor I .

finnbow
02-01-2010, 02:31 PM
So far, all I see is a Marine Guard at the door of a gov't. building. Hmmm.

rickr15
02-01-2010, 02:44 PM
How do you figure?:confused:

You do know we went to the moon back when a computer was the size of an entire room? and we did it in a handful of years?

Your statement seems to fly in the face of fact or were you being factitious?

Nope dead serious. Profit drives all. If there is found a commercial use for the moon we'll be there in a heartbeat.
Unless Govt decides to restrict airspace for military only or some crap.

noonereal
02-01-2010, 02:47 PM
Nope dead serious. Profit drives all. If there is found a commercial use for the moon we'll be there in a heartbeat.
Unless Govt decides to restrict airspace for military only or some crap.

how do you explain how well NASA did it in the 60's?

Also do you think private business would do it cheaper? You haver to figure in the profits for the investors.

noonereal
02-01-2010, 02:48 PM
well the guard is gone

rickr15
02-01-2010, 02:56 PM
how do you explain how well NASA did it in the 60's?

Also do you think private business would do it cheaper? You haver to figure in the profits for the investors.

1.I think NASA had a nearly unlimited spare no expense budget a presidential mandate and was not nearly the bloated beaurocracy they are today.

2. Profits is exactly why private industry would do it cheaper. The assmebly line was invented for a reason.

piece-itpete
02-01-2010, 03:02 PM
I get'cha, but I have a hard time believing private industry would've ever gone to the moon. Ditto for Mars.

What we need is a stripped down 'pickup truck' shuttle, not the cross between a Lambo and GMC we have today.

Pete

Boreas
02-01-2010, 03:13 PM
1.I think NASA had a nearly unlimited spare no expense budget a presidential mandate and was not nearly the bloated beaurocracy they are today.

2. Profits is exactly why private industry would do it cheaper. The assmebly line was invented for a reason.

The thing you don't seem to be taking into account here is private industry has always designed and built the hardware for the space program. NASA was pretty much just the customer and "end user".

NASA would still be the customer. It's just that the end user might one day be another private corporation working under contract to NASA, just another mouth at the public teat.

John

BlueStreak
02-02-2010, 12:04 AM
If a profit is to be made they will find a way to get there a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than if it's just scientists trying to learn new stuff.


And that's the rub, Dude. There is no profit to be made from space exploration. Unless we manage to find oil, gold, or diamonds on the moon, or Mars. But even then, can you imagine the cost of bringing enough of it home? The logisitics would be prohibitively expensive. Tourism? I dunno. Seems to me a ticket to the moon would run in the millions at best.

However, the private sector does make money off of NASA and other international space agencies. The rockets, shuttles, control systems and other hardware have always been made, under contract, by companies like Rockwell, Northrup, Boeing, GE, etc., etc..

Regards,
Dave

BlueStreak
02-02-2010, 12:28 AM
And, no, profit isn't the driving force behind everything.

Are you trying to tell me you have never spent money on something knowing you would never make the money back?

You have never considered that there really isn't any money in R&D? That the money making doesn't start until mass production begins? And, just maybe, some of the things invented by NASA scientists and engineers to make space travel possible, were later used for more practical and profitable uses? Think of all of the technological advances that may have been made, that otherwise might not have been, because the R&D costs to a private corporation would have been prohibitively high.

Regards,
Dave

Sandy G
02-02-2010, 05:39 AM
Aww, bullchit. We cribbed all that stuff from the crashed saucers in '47....(grin)

piece-itpete
02-02-2010, 07:16 AM
If we had the power source it would be relatively straightforward to mine the asteroid belt.

Pete

rickr15
02-02-2010, 07:34 AM
And, no, profit isn't the driving force behind everything.

Are you trying to tell me you have never spent money on something knowing you would never make the money back?



Regards,
Dave

I've wasted tons on stuff just because I like it. (Stereos come to mind)

However I'm not a corporation.

If they find a profitable reason to go corporations will own space. Thats why we need NASA.

noonereal
02-02-2010, 07:35 AM
2. Profits is exactly why private industry would do it cheaper. The assmebly line was invented for a reason.

You are offering a theory vs a proven commodity.

It seems to me if a widget costs .50 to make and you need to return another .50 to the shareholders the item now costs $1.
Since the government is paying the bill I think it more prudent to pay .50 rather than $1 for the widget.

What does an assembly line have to do with anything?????

Combwork
02-02-2010, 08:40 AM
Honestly, I don't buy the spinoff argument. Plus, I find it ironic for one to criticize government waste, incompetence, etc., but then argue in favor of outrageously expensive government programs based upon the possibility of "pennies on a dollar " returns on spinoff technologies.:confused:

P.S. I don't like Tang and I think our republic would do just fine without it.:D

How big would it have been? How much of this project plus spin-offs would have been home grown? Are we talking about something similar in scale to the Hoover dam? From what I've read it was high budget national projects that pulled America out of recession/depression in the 1930's.

I'm genuinely 50/50 on this one. On the one hand "To Boldly Go" just to see what's there financially doesn't make sense, but "To Boldly Go" was how the Americas were discovered in the first place. How can we evaluate whatever might be 'out there' unless we take a look?

Jim.

piece-itpete
02-02-2010, 08:49 AM
Agreed, and the will to explore seems to be the mark of a vibrant society.

Pete

merrylander
02-02-2010, 09:31 AM
And the willingness to ignore our infrastructure in order to repeat an exploration already done is a mark of what?:rolleyes:

piece-itpete
02-02-2010, 09:38 AM
It's hard to ignore the vast wealth that has often followed daring exploration.

Pete

finnbow
02-02-2010, 09:41 AM
It's hard to ignore the vast wealth that has often followed daring exploration.

Pete

And we probably know far more already about the moon than we do about the hidden depths of our own oceans.