America used to give a damn redux

[Flopper]

I think I am. The majority of America doesn't give a damn. I wish we could come up with a reason for them to start to.

Well, the first thing you can do is to support their efforts. They can't do anything without public support. Support your local astronomy club. They provide outreach to the public, and nearly all of them are huge supporters of NASA. The more people out there talking to the public about the issues, the more the public will support NASA's efforts. It's a start.

I'm working on it man. That's why I started the other thread. NASA is one of the most important Agencies in the U.S. It should be regarded way above agencies like the FBI and CIA.

I don't know about that, but I agree that it needs to get more support than it gets. NASA is at the forefront of science in this country. But they need more public support. And we can all help them in that regard.

NASA changed the world. It was the dagger in the chest of the Soviet Union. And then we killed it. And now it has to ask Russia for permission to put someone in outer space. It's pathetic.

We don't live in those days anymore, dude. Boogey men are not a valid reason for spending 100 billion dollars on space anymore. It's the science, dummy. And that's what we are doing today.

Unfortunately, there are too many people that value scientific discoveries only in dollars and cents. In the corporate world, research that can't lead to revenue in 5 to 7 years, usually get's cut. R&D is often market research and development is product adaption and modification.

What appears to be discoveries of no possible commercial value often lead to discoveries of huge value. For example:

In the 1920s, experimental physicists found that electrons have a completely unexpected property they named "Spin." Soon thereafter, the mathematical physicist Paul Dirac, in a burst of fundamental creativity, came up with the now-famous equation that fully describes the motion of an electron, including its spin. This equation was a rich theoretical lode for subsequent basic research. From the firm platform of this basic work, scientists and engineers discovered how to apply Dirac's "useless" knowledge to devices using beams of electromagnetic energy. Further applied research and development then led to the invention of the laser, whose ever-expanding usefulness would surely astonish even Dirac. It's often useless research that leads us to development of products that change our lives.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...timate-The-Usefulness-Of--Useless--Knowledge/

 

[Flopper]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

• If you value being able to skype your son or daughter serving in Korea or Kuwait, you should thank the space program.
• If you value the turn-by-turn in your car, you should thank the space program.
• If you like to know that the dark clouds out in the ocean are a deadly hurricane and that you (and the rest of Miami) should seek higher ground, you should thank the space program.
• If you like being able to see where Saddam had his artillery or if you think Kimmel would have benefited from seeing the Japanse fleet on December 5 or 6 in aut '41; you should thank the space program.
• Costs? Costs to whom? Skype is almost dirt cheap....overseas calls are not much more expensive. These are because of the democratization of space technologies.

You ask interesting questions about the value versus the costs. I would think the costs would have likely balanced out by now between all of the cheap calls, free reads of distant newspapers, e-mail messages that would have required a long distance phone call or stamps in the past etc. Costs are one thing.

Value is something else. How much do you value the ability to do all of these things and the safety of the troops, persons in Miami, being able to schedule the picnic with your daughter on Sunday instead of Saturday because you know it's going to rain on Saturday and not Sunday, showing up to the meeting or party on time with the turn by turn......value is for you to decide.

That's a decent reply. Thanks for at least answering my questions in an intelligent and civil manner.

I agree that satellite technology is very valuable and beneficial. I do hope that it is never used for detrimental purposes, however (warfare, spying, etc.). Most satellite technology was created on earth then launched into space for the direct benefit of folks living on earth. If and when the space program is used for those purposes then I'm all for funding such projects. However, I'm still not certain that landing on the moon or Mars will have significant benefits nor do I believe that sending probes to Pluto will justify the costs but, who knows.

My main concern is that money spent on the space program could be used in a more beneficial way if directed towards serious problems here on earth. Decaying/deteriorating bridges and highways. Border security. Medical technology. Etc. Also, the American taxpayer is carrying a pretty heavy load and the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. I make a little more money than I did in the 80s but am able to buy far less.

Most of the greatest scientific discoveries every made had no foreseeable commercial value at the time.

 

[BluesLegend]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

 

[Bfgrn]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

The 'solution' is not austerity. Unless you also believe blood letting saves lives.

 

[BluesLegend]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

The 'solution' is not austerity. Unless you also believe blood letting saves lives.

I can't follow your freakish logic.

 

[Kondor3]

...So what? You don't want or need all the weight of a space plane to go to Mars...

Correct. You need the area (and mass, propulsion, etc.) required to allow multiple travelers to spend 180 days (-ish) on both legs of a round trip; including storage for all the oxygen, food, water,fuel, machinery, etc., required to support such a group of travelers for a year or so of traveling, as well as time on station. Something tells me that an enhanced knockoff of a mid-20th Century concept, with some tiny half-assed dock-able habitat module traveling in lock-step with it (and a lander, presumably) won't be seen as anywhere near good enough, by the time we actually get off our asses and try a real-live honest-to-goodness manned Mars mission.

...The Apollo capsule worked very well (It was the command module that had problems in Apollo 13). The Russians have used the Soyuz capsule since the 1960s with major upgrades. And they have remained in space all that time...

True.

If you continue to make Model T's and if you continue to refurbish Model T's, they will continue to work very well.

You can add a stereo in the dashboard and give it turn-signals and seat-belts and a GPS system, but it's still a Model T.

...You don't fix it if it ain't broke...

Until the time comes to conjure-up the vision for the next-generation design, intended to surpass and outperform the old by order(s) of magnitude.

...I don't know what you expected, but the Orion will be, as you say, a "bitchin" capsule...

No doubt... as far as capsules go, I suppose.

...It is economical (compared to the shuttle), very advanced in its technology...

Nolo contendere.

...and what's more, it will do exactly what we need it to do - get us to deep space and back. And it is reusable. What more do you want?

No doubt, it will be used to boost scores or hundreds of astronauts into earth orbits of varying altitudes, and may be be mated to a lander and a next-gen command module, for a few more moon landings...

But I seriously doubt that it will remain our first choice as a vehicle for a manned mission to Mars (20-30 years, mid-2030s or early 2040s?) so far in the future.

What did I want or what did I expect in the meantime? Imagination? Creativity? Innovation? Devotion to taking America's "edge" with the Space Shuttle and increasing our lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts? The courage to try new designs and new approaches? A landing system that doesn't involve half the Seventh Fleet? I dunno.

 

[orogenicman]

...So what? You don't want or need all the weight of a space plane to go to Mars...

Correct. You need the area (and mass, propulsion, etc.) required to allow multiple travelers to spend 180 days (-ish) on both legs of a round trip; including storage for all the oxygen, food, water,fuel, machinery, etc., required to support such a group of travelers for a year or so of traveling, as well as time on station. Something tells me that an enhanced knockoff of a mid-20th Century concept, with some tiny half-assed dock-able habitat module traveling in lock-step with it (and a lander, presumably) won't be seen as anywhere near good enough, by the time we actually get off our asses and try a real-live honest-to-goodness manned Mars mission.

...The Apollo capsule worked very well (It was the command module that had problems in Apollo 13). The Russians have used the Soyuz capsule since the 1960s with major upgrades. And they have remained in space all that time...

True.

If you continue to make Model T's and if you continue to refurbish Model T's, they will continue to work very well.

You can add a stereo in the dashboard and give it turn-signals and seat-belts and a GPS system, but it's still a Model T.

...You don't fix it if it ain't broke...

Until the time comes to conjure-up the vision for the next-generation design, intended to surpass and outperform the old by order(s) of magnitude.

...I don't know what you expected, but the Orion will be, as you say, a "bitchin" capsule...

No doubt... as far as capsules go, I suppose.

...It is economical (compared to the shuttle), very advanced in its technology...

Nolo contendere.

...and what's more, it will do exactly what we need it to do - get us to deep space and back. And it is reusable. What more do you want?

No doubt, it will be used to boost scores or hundreds of astronauts into earth orbits of varying altitudes, and may be be mated to a lander and a next-gen command module, for a few more moon landings...

But I seriously doubt that it will remain our first choice as a vehicle for a manned mission to Mars (20-30 years, mid-2030s or early 2040s?) so far in the future.

What did I want or what did I expect in the meantime? Imagination? Creativity? Innovation? Devotion to taking America's "edge" with the Space Shuttle and increasing our lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts? The courage to try new designs and new approaches? A landing system that doesn't involve half the Seventh Fleet? I dunno.

Taking the lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts? What lead do you believe they have? Landing in the ocean has always been the safest route to go. Full stop. And it doesn't take half of any fleet to recover it.

 

[Politico]

When did this thread go all stupid and off topic? Oh I forgot. Pussies and such.

 

[Kondor3]

...Taking the lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts? What lead do you believe they have?...

Go back and read that again:

"...Devotion to taking America's "edge" with the Space Shuttle and increasing our lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts..."

I wasn't talking about Russia's or China's lead... I was talking about preserving our own, that we had acquired by committing to a space-plane approach.

...Landing in the ocean has always been the safest route to go. Full stop...

Right.

Which is why we abandoned the approach in the 1980s and shifted to airstrip-land-able space planes for the next three decades.

...And it doesn't take half of any fleet to recover it.

A metaphor for "a lot of frigging ships and planes and helicopters and such", of course, and not meant to be taken literally, by those accustomed to the use of metaphors.

An un-steer-able tin-can screaming down into the atmosphere and hanging from a parachute is strictly a Mercury-Gemini-Apollo -era approach, from a design standpoint.

1. We 'reached for the gold ring' when we designed such systems in the 1950s and 1960s.

2. We 'reached for the gold ring' when we designed their successor - the Shuttle (land-able space-plane) in the 1970s.

3. We got lazy and chose the poor-boy route - rehashing (1) rather than 'reaching for the gold ring' again - in settling for Orion.

All well-intentioned protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Oh, well, at least it gets us back into space again, as a self-sufficient space-capable nation.

Rather than having to go begging hat-in-hand to the Russians for seat(s) on their obsolete near-space clunkers.

 

[orogenicman]

...Taking the lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts? What lead do you believe they have?...

Go back and read that again:

"...Devotion to taking America's "edge" with the Space Shuttle and increasing our lead over our Russian and Chinese counterparts..."

I wasn't talking about Russia's or China's lead... I was talking about preserving our own, that we had acquired by committing to a space-plane approach.

...Landing in the ocean has always been the safest route to go. Full stop...

Right.

Which is why we abandoned the approach in the 1980s and shifted to airstrip-land-able space planes for the next three decades.

...And it doesn't take half of any fleet to recover it.

A metaphor for "a lot of frigging ships and planes and helicopters and such", of course, and not meant to be taken literally, by those accustomed to the use of metaphors.

An un-steer-able tin-can screaming down into the atmosphere and hanging from a parachute is strictly a Mercury-Gemini-Apollo -era approach, from a design standpoint.

1. We 'reached for the gold ring' when we designed such systems in the 1950s and 1960s.

2. We 'reached for the gold ring' when we designed their successor - the Shuttle (land-able space-plane) in the 1970s.

3. We got lazy and chose the poor-boy route - rehashing (1) rather than 'reaching for the gold ring' again - in settling for Orion.

All well-intentioned protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Oh, well, at least it gets us back into space again, as a self-sufficient space-capable nation.

Rather than having to go begging hat-in-hand to the Russians for seat(s) on their obsolete near-space clunkers.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this. A space plane will get you in LEO. It will NOT get you to the Moon or any destination beyond. We dropped the space shuttle (your space plane) exactly because of unresolvable take off and landing safety issues. 14 precious people died using that vehicle. How many more have to die before you realize this? Moreover, there are cheaper and easier ways to get cargo and crew to LEO. And finally, since our goals have changed to deep space, we don't need, and cannot use a shuttle for that purpose.

The Orion is steerable with thrusters as it enters the atmosphere. As for the Russian spacecraft, they have continuously used them with upgrades for one reason, and one reason only. They work. The haven't lost an astronaut in many years with their spacecraft. Can we say that? Certainly we cannot.

 

[Votto]

For some reason, that other thread was closed will I was in the middle of a response, and wasn't given a chance to post.

Folks, I don't know what you guys expected after Apollo, but the fact is that near the end of the program, public support went belly up, as it was apparent we had achieved our cold war goals three times over. And remember, Apollo was, for all intents and purposes, a cold war project. Add to that the very high cost of the program and the fact that we were fighting a very costly war in Vietnam, and it became apparent to everyone that it's days were numbered.

And I completely disagree with the notion that we aren't doing great things in space. We are in space RIGHT NOW. And have been continuously (24/7) since 2001. Before we go island hopping from planetary body to planetary body, or even build a colony somewhere (say, the Moon or Mars), we must first learn how to safely live in space. We aren't there yet. Radiation is a significant obstacle to long-term spaceflight. The Van Allen belts, cosmic rays and radiation from the sun are significant issues we have to learn how to address before we make any long term human commitments in space. We've built this new spacecraft that I think will do some incredible things eventually, and are working on a new heavy lift vehicle that will give us significant capabilities. What we haven't yet addressed is how to live in space while travelling somewhere (habitation module), how to land a man-rated vehicle on the surface (descent vehicle) of a significant body other than the Moon, how to live on a surface (another habitation module), and how to get off a surface (ascent vehicle) other than the Moon with a man-rated vehicle. These are all very significant engineering issues that must be meshed out. 20 years (mid 2030s) to go to Mars may sound like a lot of time, but considering the goals and the challenges those goals have laid at our feet, it isn't. It really isn't.

And the space station, as unglamorous as that is to a lot of people, is helping us with a lot of that and more. The research being done there today is groundbreaking, Yes, NASA isn't moving at Apollo speed with many of it's programs. But then, we aren't in a race with anyone, either. The days of blank checks at NASA have been over for decades, folks, and I doubt that you will ever see that again. But we are making progress, so give them a little credit for the accomplishments they have made with the budget that has been handed to them. Okay? What we are doing in space these days is real breakthrough science. Who else has landed multiple rovers on Mars? Who else has sent multiple probes to Jupiter and Saturn? Who else has sent probes to Uranus and Neptune? Who else has sent probes to Pluto, and possibly other destinations in the Kuiper belt? Who else has a probe around Mercury? Who else has sent probes outside of the solar system? NASA doesn't get the credit it deserves. It is high time they did. Instead of whining about it, how about supporting them?

There is only one way for folks in Washington to start writing blank checks to NASA again. How about, "Beat the Tea Party to Mars" program?

Just think, if conservatives reach Mars first then earth could have a political rival to fight against.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm not sure that NASA needs a blank check to achieve its goals. It needs more support from the American people, and from our representatives in Congress.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

Some people are unable or unwilling to see: we're fucking BROKE. The money IS NOT THERE.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

The 'solution' is not austerity. Unless you also believe blood letting saves lives.

I can't follow your freakish logic.

Neither can anyone else, because it isn't "logic", it is nonsense.

 

[Flopper]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

Some people are unable or unwilling to see: we're fucking BROKE. The money IS NOT THERE.

It's there if the treasury enters a 17 followed by 9 zeros in NASA's operating account. It's virtually impossible for the government to run out of money. Of course, it might not buy much but there will always be plenty of it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

The 'solution' is not austerity. Unless you also believe blood letting saves lives.

I can't follow your freakish logic.

Neither can anyone else, because it isn't "logic", it is nonsense.

Of course a regressive mind can't possible think in positive terms...only negative, punitive and small minded...

It is the very core of conservatism...

 

[BluesLegend]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

Some people are unable or unwilling to see: we're fucking BROKE. The money IS NOT THERE.

Another 10 years piling up debt like the last 10 years and we will be in a world of shit.

 

[BluesLegend]

Where did our debt come from?

It doesn't matter, stop playing the blame game and be part of the solution not the problem.

The 'solution' is not austerity. Unless you also believe blood letting saves lives.

I can't follow your freakish logic.

Neither can anyone else, because it isn't "logic", it is nonsense.

Of course a regressive mind can't possible think in positive terms...only negative, punitive and small minded...

It is the very core of conservatism...

Did that make you feel better, did you sit up in your chair and puff out your chest? Ah yeah you have some issues apparently.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

Some people are unable or unwilling to see: we're fucking BROKE. The money IS NOT THERE.

It's there if the treasury enters a 17 followed by 9 zeros in NASA's operating account. It's virtually impossible for the government to run out of money. Of course, it might not buy much but there will always be plenty of it.

Yeah...just like in Zimbabwe, or the Weimar Republic! Are you just trying to be a wiseass or do you not understand the concept of hyperinflation?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

Some people are unable or unwilling to see: we're fucking BROKE. The money IS NOT THERE.

Another 10 years piling up debt like the last 10 years and we will be in a world of shit.

We are ALREADY in a world of shit.