EPTSo just take that into consideration when responding to him.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 73
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
nikj
Canada669 Posts
So just take that into consideration when responding to him. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 26 2015 23:51 nikj wrote: You guys have to remember that Jimmy isn't even convinced the moon landing actually happened. I'm too lazy to look up exactly where he said it but it's on this site somewhere. Might even be in this very thread. So just take that into consideration when responding to him. Oh yes he doesn't even have a coherent opinion about it. Some days he denies it like this NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. But others he uses it to put down other accomplishments once some organization, somewhere can do even 1% of what the Apollo missions did in terms of human space travel i'll start to pay attention. Thanks for reminding me, now I don't need to pay him any attention and just add him to the azarkon script. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On December 25 2015 19:12 Gorsameth wrote: Why would we want to go to Mars anyway? There is no economical reason to do so at this time. It is the same as the Moon back in the day. The only reason to go is to show we can. Simply not worth it right now. There's only one reason. To show that it can be done. That's why we went to the moon. And that's the end of human space flight, period. Going to another planet is way bigger than going to the moon. Next step is going to another star, which is basically not possible period. Human nature/civilization is so fucked, I can't see it ever happen. This is exactly what Buzz Aldrin has always said. There's no point in going back to the moon or going to Phobos. That would waste money and public support. So we race to Mars for nationalism and propaganda purposes, and that's it. Going to Mars to satisfy romantic SF nerd dreams, that won't happen. Going there to make mankind 'multi planet' or some crazy Hawkins idea, that's stupid. Mars will always be dependent on earth. If Earth goes, so does Mars go. And putting people on Mars only puts more strain on earth to deliver resources, production, food and energy, not less. Going there for space tourism, hopefully the super-rich won't be spending money on space tourism, wasting the production of an entire city during a year, just for their own personal megalomaniac pleasure. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On December 25 2015 19:39 Evotroid wrote: Basically: + Show Spoiler + Note, his definition of what is a good reason to spend money may differ from yours (or mine) but here is a video of an advocate explaining his point, I think rather well. 1) Mars is where the science is: Science can be done by robots. We have humans in orbit of our own planet right now and so much of their time is spend on maintenance, sleeping, staying alive, giving interviews to show taxpayer money is being used properly, it is just a waste. Almost none of the astronauts in orbit have PhDs/are scientists. The no. of publications is very very low. If you look at taxpayer dollar per publication/citation/H-index, it must be off the scale low compared to the average no of dollars needed to produce a publication/citation/H-index/ No reason to waste money on ISS and Constellation, Orion, Apollo if all we want to do is explore Mars. We can try that already. And we already know life is a super-rare event. We don't need to go to Mars to show that. 2) Where the challenge is: Exploration? So we are paying 100 billion so some carefully selected person can see Mars with human eyes and tell us how it feels like? So we are doing it because it is challenging? We stagnate if we don't waste money to put humans on Mars? What about the stagnation caused by Apollo, space shuttle and ISS. America could have gone along and build their Superconducting Super Collider. Columbus? Only Americans care about that. Weren't there already people in the America's? You know, the ones you genocided. The 'discovery' of the new world was a very dark chapter in human history. Don't see how people can use it as an example of the virtues of exploration. 3) Is this the future argument? (seems that one was cut off) Most important thing we can do in our time? Doesn't that beg the question? So what good was Apollo 11? It was great propaganda and we got some moon rocks. But that's it. Want a crazy challenge. Why not take a person to the center of the earth. Drill a hole, make some heat-resistant vehicle and try to steer it through the magma to the center. Most important? To me these are questions of science. But since I have a PhD, I am biased. Cure cancer. Stop aging, those would be great and actually meaningful. Anyone here would rather go to Mars than be able to undo aging? (don't bring up overpopulation or something then. We have overpopulation for a reason. Take away that reason and we don't have it, no matter if people age or not). Or, make our economy sustainable. Or, show the rest of the world we can be a superpower and at the same time set an example that shows a world without war is possible. Most important thing we can do? Yeah, maybe if you are president of the Mars society? Aren't those a bunch of college dropouts that go LARPing Mars Invaders or Dune in the desert? Don't get me started about Hawking's multi-planet nonsense. If you are wise, humans going to go extinct sooner than later is fine. But we should minimize suffering and create equal opportunities for everyone to have a good life right now. Worrying about us going extinct in 1000 years and having us spread our nastiness across several planets, that's folly. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On December 27 2015 20:06 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: 1) Mars is where the science is: Science can be done by robots. We have humans in orbit of our own planet right now and so much of their time is spend on maintenance, sleeping, staying alive, giving interviews to show taxpayer money is being used properly, it is just a waste. Almost none of the astronauts in orbit have PhDs/are scientists. The no. of publications is very very low. If you look at taxpayer dollar per publication/citation/H-index, it must be off the scale low compared to the average no of dollars needed to produce a publication/citation/H-index/ No reason to waste money on ISS and Constellation, Orion, Apollo if all we want to do is explore Mars. We can try that already. And we already know life is a super-rare event. We don't need to go to Mars to show that. 2) Where the challenge is: Exploration? So we are paying 100 billion so some carefully selected person can see Mars with human eyes and tell us how it feels like? So we are doing it because it is challenging? We stagnate if we don't waste money to put humans on Mars? What about the stagnation caused by Apollo, space shuttle and ISS. America could have gone along and build their Superconducting Super Collider. Columbus? Only Americans care about that. Weren't there already people in the America's? You know, the ones you genocided. The 'discovery' of the new world was a very dark chapter in human history. Don't see how people can use it as an example of the virtues of exploration. 3) Is this the future argument? (seems that one was cut off) Most important thing we can do in our time? Doesn't that beg the question? So what good was Apollo 11? It was great propaganda and we got some moon rocks. But that's it. Want a crazy challenge. Why not take a person to the center of the earth. Drill a hole, make some heat-resistant vehicle and try to steer it through the magma to the center. Most important? To me these are questions of science. But since I have a PhD, I am biased. Cure cancer. Stop aging, those would be great and actually meaningful. Anyone here would rather go to Mars than be able to undo aging? (don't bring up overpopulation or something then. We have overpopulation for a reason. Take away that reason and we don't have it, no matter if people age or not). Or, make our economy sustainable. Or, show the rest of the world we can be a superpower and at the same time set an example that shows a world without war is possible. Most important thing we can do? Yeah, maybe if you are president of the Mars society? Aren't those a bunch of college dropouts that go LARPing Mars Invaders or Dune in the desert? Don't get me started about Hawking's multi-planet nonsense. If you are wise, humans going to go extinct sooner than later is fine. But we should minimize suffering and create equal opportunities for everyone to have a good life right now. Worrying about us going extinct in 1000 years and having us spread our nastiness across several planets, that's folly. Honestly, you seem a little narrow minded for someone with a PhD. Cure cancer. Sure, why not? who said you couldn't work on it? Then again, what is the timeline on that? maybe 10 years? or 50? or even just 5? you don't suppose we should stop all other science until we happen to cure it, do you? If we are at that, why cancer? why not first stop all violence, that kills way more, than cancer? (by then, you could ask again, when will that happen?) When addressing the manned part of the mission, you did not account for his arguments about all the aspiring engineers and scientists, doctors that it would give to us as a society, so I will just leave this here as a counter argument. On Columbus, he did not bring it up, as a virtue, but as something that matters, just like other dark pages of history, that matter and we well remember for a long time, despite how dark they were. Honestly, if someone smarter than me really tried, could potentially point out more fallacies in your counter arguments, but what struck me: Why do you anti manned mars crowd have to be so edgy? absolutist? (sorry not sure what's the right english phrase) You could be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't pretend that we could solve other great problems just like that, by giving up a manned mars program, or that we would need to abolish complete social programs for it. (lol wtf) (not specifically you) Initially I didn't even want to address your jab at the Mars society being larpers, but also, typically constructive argument, that makes your point that more ... knee-jerk, devoid of real reason. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Going to Mars is not the biggest thing we can do right now. I give a counterexample. Obviously we have to look at return on investment and we need to look at keeping each field of science alive so we have it when it does suddenly become important. But, human space field isn't science. Inspiring children and aspiring people to STM careers, well I see that all the time on NASA tv. They are really big on that. If a child asks a question, they always answer 'do well on math and science in school'. They really think we need to put people on the moon again, and on Mars to make sure our teenagers don't go into law or medical school? They all tow that marketing line really well. Even the ESA guys. When one is on tv, they talk about how Apollo 11 inspired them to work hard and be astronauts. Really? We are doing this to influence our children to do what we want them to do? Why not just have a chat with them? Or be overall better parents? What about all the talent working on human space flight that could be doing something else? If he didn't bring up Columbus as a good thing, then how does his analogy work? Going to Mars could potentially be a dark page, but we need to do it anyway because dark pages are also important? Ok, so smart people who make arguments can't also make snide comments and take a jab? First I counter his arguments, then I take a shot at him personally, I admit to that. But he could be a LARPer with sound arguments. His arguments work or don't work regardless of how silly the Mars society is. There is no ad hominem to be seen. Never saw someone make these comments about Mars society. You think they are cliche? I think they are original and a new twist. If you think my points count for less because of what I said alongside, now that is ad ad hominem. But are you really accusing me at taking cheap shots at those poor fellows at the Mars society? I am sure they are all made up of privileged people, educated or not. I doubt they are worried about their children growing up in a bad neighborhood. Else they would be more occupied by different things. It's not like I am attacking Muslims or immigrants, shapegoating them, making silly underbelly arguments as an angry person who feels he has failed in this hard modern society we live in. Narrow minded? Narrow minded is the people of the Pluto New Horizon mission and Space X chanting 'USA USA USA' when their probe/rocket doesn't blow up. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 27 2015 20:06 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: don't bring up overpopulation or something then. We have overpopulation for a reason. Take away that reason and we don't have it, no matter if people age or not A dude "with a phd" comes in this thread, cites colombus as a bad reason and suggests we should do the same so he can live longer. So much for keeping the debate civil. Moving on... Next step is going to another star, which is basically not possible period. With a mindset like that, you can replace "going to another star" with ANYTHING and pretend you made a point. "Next step is curing cancer, which is basically not possible period." is a pretty good argument to stop medical research, isn't it? + Show Spoiler + /s So we race to Mars for nationalism and propaganda purposes, and that's it. Going to Mars to satisfy romantic SF nerd dreams, that won't happen. Going there to make mankind 'multi planet' or some crazy Hawkins idea, that's stupid. You give 4 reasons to go to mars right there. Nationalism, propaganda, rich guy's dream, multi planet. Pretty valid reasons, but let's call them stupid to make your point! Is that how you wrote your doctoral thesis as well? "Using micro RNAs to fight cancer" ... "using regular RNA is stupid" Science can be done by robots. Yup, with a mindset like yours we can just program a bot to say "that's stupid" anytime you want him "to make science". Meanwhile, we humans are free to post selfies on facebook all day. And we already know life is a super-rare event. We don't need to go to Mars to show that. Define super rare. 10^-10%? Because there's at least 10^11 planets in our galaxy alone. And current theories suggest that life isn't that rare at all, given the amount of places we already found water on our own solar system. Or, show the rest of the world we can be a superpower and at the same time set an example that shows a world without war is possible. You realise NASA's budget isn't even 10% of what US spent yearly on iraq? So we stop war and just store that extra money to be buried with it when the meteor hits earth? Or we can give tenure to people like yourself to sit on their asses, because doing anything else would be stupid. Worrying about us going extinct in 1000 years and having us spread our nastiness across several planets, that's folly. ATM I'm more worried about you spreading your genes. e: If he didn't bring up Columbus as a good thing, then how does his analogy work? Columbus being good or bad history is irrelevant for the analogy. The analogy is that other important things happened the very same day and people don't remember those. It's like if tomorrow Israel and Palestine signed a peace treaty and Elon Musk landed on Mars. 100 years from now no one would remember the peace treaty signing as historic as that would be today. What about all the talent working on human space flight that could be doing something else? No one is forcing that work upon them. They do it because they want to. Going to Mars is not the biggest thing we can do right now. I give a counterexample. Obviously we have to look at return on investment and we need to look at keeping each field of science alive so we have it when it does suddenly become important. You gave your opinion, which many people on this thread disagree with. You can try to factually prove that one field IS THE BIGGEST THING WE CAN DO!!!! but you didn't. Like my previous point, we can't force people to work on the fields we want them to. And I don't see any field dying any time soon because rocket science stole all talent. so smart people who make arguments can't also make snide comments and take a jab They can but they don't need to, because they're smart. Your error was assuming you were. If you think my points count for less because of what I said alongside, now that is ad ad hominem Aren't those a bunch of college dropouts that go LARPing Mars Invaders or Dune in the desert? This is ad hominem. So because he called you out on it, that makes it ad ad hominem? Ok It's not like I am attacking Muslims or immigrants, shapegoating them, making silly underbelly arguments as an angry person who feels he has failed in this hard modern society we live in. Nope, it looks like you're attacking Mars believers, scapegoating them and making silly underbelly arguments as an angry "PhD" who got is grant taken away for trying to solve human mortality and getting nowhere. Or maybe you're a geologist studying earth rocks and got your grant assigned to someone else studying moon rocks, something like that. human space field isn't science. Finally we agree on something. As for inspiring children, that really is a great argument in favour of pursuing larger achievements. I rather have my children inspired by Buzz Aldrin (who I don't even like and heavily disagree with on some points) than by the Kardashians. And inspiring them with space exploration doesn't dictate they will be space explorers or "rocket scientists". There's more to space exploration than just engineering. Biology is pretty important as well and we do use the ISS to make a ton of medical research. Any science field would benefit from mars because it literally opens another world to study. Even social sciences. | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On December 27 2015 22:44 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: (...) I think you gave a bad counter example, because we cant just "cure cancer" now, or in the timeframe we could go to mars, and especially, axing the mars program, would not do much to help cancer research, we are already knee deep in it as far as I know, unlike a real dedicated program to go to mars, not just some vague "yeah, by two thousand something-something we can go there for xy $ (from a business man no less...) Inspiring children is not THE main goal of it, it would be just a beneficial side effect that the opposition likes to discard, unreasonably I think. I'm no expert on children, but from my life experience, it would sure be more inspiring to say "work hard and you could be the first mars colonist" than some hippie saying on tv he is there because of the apollo program. You gave no reason while this would be otherwise. Working on spaceflight is again, not some black hole, that just sinks money, talent and time, with nothing coming out. Just like it gives out inspiration, "all the talent working on human space flight that could be doing something else?" does give out numerous inventions, discoveries and what not see for a quick example Again, the Columbus analogy has nothing to do with being dark, or bright, that is your construct. He only brought it up as an example to what is important, in the long term, versus what is not so important, as the people of the moment might think. On your jab, I really do consider it negatively, as in my experience, someone inserting those lines, is more likely to be already biased beyond reason, but I can accept that it was not the case, and I misjudged it. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
I did laugh at your microRNA/thesis comment though. More of that and less of the other please. Also, saying some group of unnamed people may contain college dropouts and may do silly things is different about stating that you hope that the person you attempt to debate can't reproduce because they have the 'retard gene', or whatever you seem to imply. Now say you know I cheated on my girlfriend. Then you could have countered my arguments eloquently. And then you can attach a comment attacking my moral character or my ability to safeguard the trust people put in me. That is proper behavior and not ad hominem. As for NASA spin-off technology. More than half of it NASA only played a major part and for basically 100% of it, they weren't based on discoveries made on the moon. It's all technology that could have been invented, and would have been invented, without ever leaving the atmosphere. If you are going to throw around the amount of money NASA gets, the no. of engineers and scientists you have employed, you better also invent some stuff. But what about all that technology that was invented later because the money that could have funded that research went to NASA? That site itself is especially bad. They could have well claim NASA also invented the internet. Wouldn't have made the site any less credible. Did like their claim that NASA invented insulation. That's a novelty at least. Gave me a laugh. And I am all for space flight, probes, rockets, etc. But human space flight so far has been 100% tourism or propaganda. Can't counter all points made. Not enough time. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 27 2015 23:47 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Can't counter all points made. Not enough time. If we do end up living forever, make sure to drop by and finish this, there will be plenty of time then. It's all technology that could have been invented, and would have been invented, without ever leaving the atmosphere. Pretty sure Sat phones, Sat TV and GPS were impossible before we left the atmosphere. Just from the top of my head. But human space flight so far has been 100% tourism or propaganda. So in which category would the Hubble telescope fall? I don't understand why you keep dealing in absolutisms like this, unless you wanna argue Mike Massimino was a space tourist or propaganda agent. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
I watched Massimino live everyday when he was repairing Hubble. I vividly remember the moment they couldn't open the hatch on the Hubble or that the handrail was in the way and they had to rip it off. That was a scary moment, but he managed. Highly entertaining and he did a great achievement. He even got so famous you know him. Prob because of big bang theory. You know, the program that ridicules nerds. Remove the cost of the shuttle and you have a new Hubble every 5 years. No need to do service missions. Shuttle was 196 billion dollars. Hubble was only 2.5 billion. NASA has/had nothing to do with GPS or comsats. Let alone their humanspaceflight segment. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3238 Posts
On December 28 2015 00:12 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Hubble is the astronomer after which the telescope is named, not the guy inside operating it. Now you're not even trying to hide the fact that you're a troll. B+, made me laugh. Also, I thought you didn't have time to debunk my previous arguments, but here you are, fact checking Shuttle and HST costs. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Hubble has nothing to do with HSF. I saw you edited your post to clarify in which way you think they are linked, so I edited mine to share my experience about how I watched the service mission live all day. Don't forget the Hubble glasses. The original mirror had an aberration. They fixed it with the shuttle. But, that's still more expensive. Would be cheaper to give up on it and build a new one. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
It really doesn't suit anyone to use half-arsed "papers" to argue his point, it just backfires. Mars is really simple though. You only need to answer a couple of questions. Do we need to go to mars? Is there more important things that space agencies could spend their monies on? I'd argue, no. We don't need to go to mars. There's pretty much no actual reason to do so, other than "we gonna try". Is there more important things that could be researched/improved? Yup. How about we improve detection/deflection of asteroids, so we don't need to rely on "good luck" and privateers? I'd say that's inspiring, research that makes sure we don't just go poof? Pretty sure Sat phones, Sat TV and GPS were impossible before we left the atmosphere. Just from the top of my head. They also have little to do with NASA. Or human space flight in general. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A Washington brawl has broken out over the future of the U.S. military's ability to reach orbit, with the powerhouse combo of Boeing and Lockheed Martin jostling with the scrappy — yet well-funded — upstart of entrepreneur Elon Musk’s SpaceX for multibillion-dollar contracts for launching satellites. The competition is upending the norms of the defense contractor heavyweights, who are not used to dealing with relatively fresh rivals, and has released a flood of lobbying cash. SpaceX has spent more than $1.3 million on lobbying this year and while the Boeing-Lockheed joint effort, called United Launch Alliance, spent more than $900,000 — both on pace to easily set new records for the companies once the final quarter of 2015 is reported. It’s also spawned a proxy war in the Senate. Before Congress left town for the holidays, Boeing-Lockheed ally Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) slipped language into the massive $1.1 trillion spending bill overturning restrictions on ULA's ability to use Russian-made engines to power its rockets — and thus, U.S. military satellites — into orbit. The move sparked a furious response from McCain (R-Ariz.), a SpaceX backer and sponsor of the original engine restrictions, who slammed Shelby for choosing "to reward [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and his cronies with a windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars." The Senate Armed Services chairman threatened to ratchet up the limitations placed on the Russian engines to a "complete and indefinite restriction." And this is all before the real showdown starts next year. The Defense Department is expected to award contracts for at least four satellite launches next year, marking the first time ULA and SpaceX compete head-to-head for the Pentagon business. Source | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/27/launch-of-nasas-next-mars-mission-delayed-until-at-least-2018/ the cost cap for the mission is $675 million and the so far they've spent $525 million. if NASA determines the wait for the next possible launch date in 26 months time will put it over the cost cap then they will cancel the mission completely. this is an example of proper decision making that respects the taxpayers money. On December 27 2015 19:48 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: This is exactly what Buzz Aldrin has always said. There's no point in going back to the moon or going to Phobos. That would waste money and public support. i can dig up interviews where Aldrin says going to Phobos would be awesome. Aldrin is not a NASA decision maker and is more of a charismatic figure-head type guy like Ronald Reagan was 15 years before he died. Aldrin contradicts himself A LOT from interview to interview .. year-in and year-out. He'll then claim the media source took him out of context. Like that whole "we might've saw a UFO fiasco" where he had to retract a bunch of stuff. I also recall his 1994 ,25th anniversary interview where he said "we" would be back on the moon by 2010. LOL For years now, Aldrin is so inconsistent and vague there is no point in trying to use the gafflegarb that comes out of his mouth as proof of anything. Same thing with Ronald Reagan after 1986. Let's face it, Nancy Reagan was the USA's first female prez.  | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
On December 26 2015 23:51 nikj wrote: You guys have to remember that Jimmy isn't even convinced the moon landing actually happened. I'm too lazy to look up exactly where he said it but it's on this site somewhere. Might even be in this very thread. So just take that into consideration when responding to him. in case you mised it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/180910-nasa-and-the-private-sector?page=71#1407 would you like more sources? i can produce them. if its too detailed and re-enforces what i've stated its better just to trash me and ignore the facts. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
NASA may dream of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades, but the fact remains that nobody's really sure how we'll survive the journey or set up camp on the red planet. The Orion spacecraft that will drive astronauts to Mars has a diameter that's about the length of a pickup truck. That's not a lot of space when you consider the astronauts' journey to Mars will take at least 6 months. In order to not go totally bonkers, Mars-bound astronauts will need a larger place to live, complete with private quarters and exercise equipment. NASA envisions the Orion capsule could link up to a habitation module in space, but right now they have no idea what that module could look like. And who knows what the astronauts will live in once they get to Mars. Now SpaceNews says that a report attached to the recent omnibus spending bill has allocated funds for NASA to figure it out. The bill orders NASA to spend at least $55 million to develop a habitation module for deep space exploration, and to have a prototype ready by 2018. That would be great timing, since NASA wants to test out its new space habitat around the moon in the 2020s before sending it to Mars in the 2030s. However, whether NASA could have something ready by 2018 seems debatable. At this point, the agency pretty much has a blank slate as to what the habitat would look like and how it would function. Shielding astronauts from space radiation while also maintaining a light weight will be one of the major challenges. Thus far Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable habitat stands out as a frontrunner--a test version of the habitat will soon be deployed on the International Space Station. SpaceNews reports that NASA has also awarded funds to Boeing, Lockheed, Martin, Orbital ATK, and other companies to look into potential habitat designs. Source | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
NASA got a funding increase and they have $55 million to spend on building a prototype and Congress wants the prototype done by 2018. i'd like to hear NASA's official reaction to the money and the deadline. i think nothing will ever come of this and what we have here is some politicians trying to gain some right wing street cred by acting tough towards NASA about keeping things on budget and on time. | ||
| ||
