|
Keep debates civil. |
On May 06 2012 06:56 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 20:20 idkfa wrote:On May 05 2012 10:24 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
NASA has been a collosal waste of resources. A trillion + has been spent, and what exactly has resulted? A bunch of pretty pictures and tang, and maybe some new advances in weapons that can eliminate the human race. Epic fail. Shut it down. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing, where you can just completely make up any old thing you want and type it where people can read it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA'Seen in the year-by-year breakdown listed below, the total amounts (in nominal dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2011 amounts to $526.18 billion dollars' adjust for inflation and that is > 1 trillion, brah
Actually, brah, it isn't > 1 trillion, but i digress.
NASA would be a waste of money if we could actually solve the problems on earth by just chucking money at them. Sadly it takes more than that to fix most problems. Parts of highly successful western nations still suffer from terrible poverty, hunger and violence.
Throwing money at NASA actually gets some tangible results, but i guess I am just one of those people who thinks exploring our universe and how it works is actually somewhat meaningful.
|
A trillion has been given in aid to Africa. I wouldn't say they've made a lot more progress on that front than on the space front.
|
On May 06 2012 08:48 BlackJack wrote:
A trillion has been given in aid to Africa. I wouldn't say they've made a lot more progress on that front than on the space front.
Agree. Send all the water and food, but within the next month they are stuck in the same position again.
|
A trillion has been given in aid to Africa. I wouldn't say they've made a lot more progress on that front than on the space front.
That's because the solution to the economic problems of Africa is not giving a trillion dollars to the corrupt governments that are fucking everything up there in the first place. In order to understand how Africa can emerge from the darkness it is useful to look @ the example of Botswana, a nation which was for many decades the worlds fastest growing economy.
|
|
|
On May 06 2012 08:12 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:DreamChaser : I agree that spending trillions on armies is a bad idea. I am in favour of eliminating all government spending. I was opposed to the war on Iraq & the war on Afghanistan when they began and I oppose them still. I'm not just against those wars, I'm against the next wars as well. I opposed the intervention in Libya. I oppose the use of predator drones that murder Pakistani children. Show nested quote + What has NASA ever done that has been related to war or blowing up the human race. You don't think they're putting weapons in outer space? Governments kill people. That's sort of their schtick. Maybe they did funnel a trillion dollars just to take pretty pictures, and have some dudes shoot golf on the moon but that seems to me to be viewing this whole thing through rose coloured glasses. Satelliete's are extremely useful for surveillance in terms of conventional warfare. ICBMS, etc.
The NASA budget doesn't include the surveillance satellites, ICBMs, and other military uses of space flight. Those areas fall under National Reconnaissance Office and Air Force Space Command.
As for the elimination of all government spending...I think you may be in the wrong thread for that.
|
On May 06 2012 09:15 Cite wrote:Just wanted to throw this article out there to those talking about figures and how ridiculously small Nasa's budget is: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioningTo those that say Nasa actually needs a budget cut I just don't understand. Why does Nasa need the budget cut to give somewhere else when they barely constitute any portion of the overall budget.
Thins finger pointing is immature and has to stop. Are we talking about anything other than Nasa? look at the title. Stop with the fallacies and actually develop an argument.
Is the Defense budget too big? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. We are discussing Nasa's.
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
I'll repeat a great line from In Time, "No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die."
|
On May 06 2012 08:12 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:DreamChaser : I agree that spending trillions on armies is a bad idea. I am in favour of eliminating all government spending. I was opposed to the war on Iraq & the war on Afghanistan when they began and I oppose them still. I'm not just against those wars, I'm against the next wars as well. I opposed the intervention in Libya. I oppose the use of predator drones that murder Pakistani children. Show nested quote + What has NASA ever done that has been related to war or blowing up the human race. You don't think they're putting weapons in outer space? Governments kill people. That's sort of their schtick. Maybe they did funnel a trillion dollars just to take pretty pictures, and have some dudes shoot golf on the moon but that seems to me to be viewing this whole thing through rose coloured glasses. Satelliete's are extremely useful for surveillance in terms of conventional warfare. ICBMS, etc.
First there's no evidence that i know of that NASA does or does not support the united stated military. The spy satellites and the ones used for missile guidance i am 99% sure are not controlled by NASA. For example when the generals want to know how strong the enemy force in location X they don't phone up NASA and ask them to point one of their satellite's and take a picture. For one NASA is a civilian agency so no one would have clearance and secondly the United States Air Force/ DoD are in control of those type.
I will admit the complete original intention of NASA's creation was to beat the soviets in space for no reason of science but purely political/military. But that is no longer the case NASA isn't creating the ISS as a prototype for a "Star Wars" type of Reagan station.
You continue to say trillion dollars like NASA's budget is a trillion dollars like i said before it has taken them 58 years to incur that trillion. If you know anything about space flight and the costs it takes to send one pound 200 miles out into space the numbers wouldn't seem that large.
Space is a very expensive venture not quite as expensive as war, but to send something into space there needs to be fuel costs, then the space craft needs to survive the harsh environments of space the instant freezing/heating. Then they need to survive the flight back while going at speeds more than 3x the speed of sound and temperatures in the thousands.
I think you see everything as far to much as a conspiracy
|
On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
Let's quit the horse hockey and get down to business. What are we talking here? Like a tiny baby or a paedophile terrorist. A Mars explorer which takes 5 meg photos of Mars rocks or a space elevator.
Seriously though, if I were a paedophile I'd probably become a terrorist and vice versa, because at that point, you know, why not?
|
On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
Science, investment for the next generation, and the forward progress of our species are all far more important than the individual.
Throwing food aid at poor regions of the world does nothing but speed our approach to the inevitable collision with the upper limit of Earth's carrying capacity.
|
On May 06 2012 09:12 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:Show nested quote +A trillion has been given in aid to Africa. I wouldn't say they've made a lot more progress on that front than on the space front.
That's because the solution to the economic problems of Africa is not giving a trillion dollars to the corrupt governments that are fucking everything up there in the first place. In order to understand how Africa can emerge from the darkness it is useful to look @ the example of Botswana, a nation which was for many decades the worlds fastest growing economy.
I just don't see how anything financial will change the situation in those countries. You can't change the government unless you intervene, and I don't support that whatsoever. Basically, I think that "US money" is better used in space then being sent to the corrupt governments of these African nations. This way it actually helps mankind.
On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
I'll repeat a great line from In Time, "No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die."
^Edited this in.. Good viewpoint
I just see investing in space as a great thing. Space causes so many advancements in technology (including the medical field which saves lives). Also, most of the fundamental theories in math that have been developed were due to mathematicians from 1500 - 1800ish, when the term mathematician was synonymous with astronomer. Without these people studying space, most of our engineering feats now would never have been possible (we wouldn't have had the math to do the calculations).
Obviously now, we aren't developing those mathematics again, but problems still remain to be solved. Space is something that helps develop technology when attempts are made to meet the challenges that space requires.
Honestly, I just feel that as a scientist this is what I want to do: expand my mind, solve scientific problems, and improve the technology of mankind. If you don't want to do this, then by all means do what you would like, but please don't say that it is pointless; just respect the job that so many people work hard at. You must realize that whether or not we spend money in space or on NASA is an entirely subjective viewpoint...
|
I'm all for the investment in the future, but lets not pretend the U.S. isn't currently involved in Africa. This is a false dichotomy. The U.S. can invest in space and simply stop sending guns and tanks to... let's say... Egypt both improving the financial prospect of those Americans who are interested in pure science - which is a noble and unpredictably useful endeavour which government funding has occasionally been useful in furthering (Computers, the internet, the jet engine) - whilst at the same time performing the "Africa improving function" of allowing the country's population to work out how to feed itself with cotton and petroleum.
Being blessed with a proximity to abundant, vital resources resources and a pliant military dictatorship the U.S. seems currently indisposed to allow this desirable state of affairs to happen.
|
On May 06 2012 09:55 TheNihilist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
Science, investment for the next generation, and the forward progress of our species are all far more important than the individual. Throwing food aid at poor regions of the world does nothing but speed our approach to the inevitable collision with the upper limit of Earth's carrying capacity.
Look at the most developed parts of the world. Over the past 5 years they have experienced very little population growth, while the poorer nations have grown rapidly?
Does't that seem strange? It's like you think humans are forced to breed like rabbits. The United States isn't even close to its carrying capacity, yet it's population is not booming. While Africa's population is growing exponentially while they continue to starve.
If nations are developed, well educated in terms of sexual education and birth control and encouraged to keep family sizes small, the population can become sustainable.
The world CAN become sustainable. Imagine a green earth with a stable population. Where we move from meats and processed foods to natural foods (we feed our cattle and livestock enough food to feed the world) A world where living in a "poor" neighborhood doesn't go hand in hand with a violent and crime ridden one because the rest of the country and world actually gives a dam about them.
Wouldn't that scenario be more appropriate to set our sights on the stars than our current one?
|
On May 06 2012 10:31 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:55 TheNihilist wrote:On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:
the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth.
Science, investment for the next generation, and the forward progress of our species are all far more important than the individual. Throwing food aid at poor regions of the world does nothing but speed our approach to the inevitable collision with the upper limit of Earth's carrying capacity. Look at the most developed parts of the world. Over the past 5 years they have experienced very little population growth, while the poorer nations have grown rapidly? Does't that seem strange? It's like you think humans are forced to breed like rabbits. The United States isn't even close to its carrying capacity, yet it's population is not booming. While Africa's population is growing exponentially while they continue to starve. If nations are developed, well educated in terms of sexual education and birth control and encouraged to keep family sizes small, the population can become sustainable. The world CAN become sustainable. Imagine a green earth with a stable population. Where we move from meats and processed foods to natural foods (we feed our cattle and livestock enough food to feed the world) A world where living in a "poor" neighborhood doesn't go hand in hand with a violent and crime ridden one because the rest of the country and world actually gives a dam about them. Wouldn't that scenario be more appropriate to set our sights on the stars than our current one?
So why are you posting on a starcraft forum instead of working towards that goal? You should sell your computer and use that money to make a difference. Be the change you want to see in the world!
|
Blue Origins has, officially, unveiled their Spacecraft:
![[image loading]](http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/eSMME2mWOyjV2Fiiafi_Rg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zODM7cT04NTt3PTU3NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/blue-origin-wind-tunnel.jpg1336146522)
![[image loading]](http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/U.t4ETSU1K7M6yx0rbgJuA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD04MDA7cT04NTt3PTUwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/SPACE.com/blue-origin-diagram-1.jpg1321649999)
The curtain of secrecy is being raised by Blue Origin, a private entrepreneurial space group designing both suborbital and orbital vehicles.
Backed by Amazon.com mogul Jeff Bezos, the Kent, Wash.-based Blue Origin group has completed wind tunnel testing of its next-generation craft, simply called the "Space Vehicle." It would transport up to seven astronauts to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station. Though the company has been stingy on public information in the past, new details of the recent work have been released.
Blue Origin's spacecraft sports a biconic shape, with its design refined by more than 180 wind tunnel tests and extensive computational fluid dynamics analysis. To help validate the spacecraft's shape and body flap configuration, tests were recently carried out over several weeks at Lockheed Martin's High Speed Wind Tunnel Facility in Dallas.
The testing was conducted as part of Blue Origin's partnership with NASA, under the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, which awarded the company $22 million in 2011 to develop the vehicle.
Also under CCDev, Blue Origin is ready to start conducting tests of its BE-3 engine thrust chamber assembly — the engine's combustion chamber and nozzle — for the BE-3's 100,000 pounds of thrust, liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen-fueled rocket motor.
The BE-3 will be used on Blue Origin's reusable launch vehicle.
"It's on the E-1 test stand now," at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, "and we're close to conducting the first firings," said Brett Alexander, director of business development and strategy for Blue Origin, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Rocket motor testing at Stennis is scheduled to start in May, Alexander told SPACE.com.
Blue Origin is a private company developing vehicles and technologies to enable commercial human space transportation.
Founded in 2000, the company explains that it has a long-term vision of greatly increasing the number of people that fly into space through low-cost, highly reliable commercial space transportation.
But why so tight-lipped about its enterprising work?
"There are really two reasons," Alexander said. "One is we like to talk about things we've done — not things we're planning to do. So it's more about accomplishments. After all, the space business is hard. Things always take longer than you'd expect. I think that's true for newer space companies, as well as established space companies."
Another reason, Alexander continued, is that "we don't want to get off-focus. We're a very intense engineering, technical company. We don't have a lot of accountants for contracts…and the more time we spend talking about things, there's less time we spend doing things."
Source
|
I hadn't really been following Blue Origin due to the lack of information, but I was pleasantly surprised to hear that one of the main components of their sub orbital and orbital rocket design was re-usability. Having two private companies (SpaceX and Blue Origin) focusing on reusable rocket technology is incredibly exciting. Also, Blue Origin's "pusher escape system" sounds very similar to the Dragon's ability to eject at any time during the flight. Very exciting to see certain safety features starting to become the norm (or as much of the norm as they can be in an emerging industry). I really wish NASA received a bigger budget for the COTS/CCDev programs. Just seeing the different approaches that SpaceX, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Science, and Boeing are taking is awesome to watch.
|
A public/private mixture seems to be the way to go when it comes to space.
|
On May 06 2012 09:39 xrapture wrote:Thins finger pointing is immature and has to stop. Are we talking about anything other than Nasa? look at the title. Stop with the fallacies and actually develop an argument. Is the Defense budget too big? Maybe, but it doesn't matter. We are discussing Nasa's. the guy above me seems to think that exploring outer space is more important than saving lives here on Earth. I'll repeat a great line from In Time, "No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die."
how is that a great line, thats the shittiest mindset i've ever heard. "lets not progress at all in any field because there are costs and risks associated with everything."
|
Yes, funding NASA is very important. It inspires a whole generation and leads to critical developments in science and engineering that can be used right back here. I wish people would see this.
|
If you think something is important, spend your own money on it. It's a lot easier for you to have the government steal my money and spend it on something you think is important than to spend your own money on something, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
