Printable View
What is so great about that? It was expensive sure. It was a technological and scientific feat, sure. But great. I think that amount of money, dedication, scientists and all could have done many things that were much greater. Perhaps less of a novelty act though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Apart from all the commercial spin offs.
Sitting our entire civilisation on a single planet or even solar system is putting all our eggs in one basket. I for one don't want to be a 65 million year old fossil with the cockroaches trying to figure out what petty intrigues left us planet bound when we have the technology to spread to other planets.
As a feat in itself not many people can claim to have orbited another object in space or walked on its surface. Far cooler and useful then yearly sports comps.
Yeah forgot that destruction is imminent and so is our ability to truly space travel and colonize...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
We've got a heck of a long time that we'll be here and even a longer time that most of us will be here, I'd say investing the earth might not be such a bad idea.
Essentially review how much money and resources is thrown at movies and sports before claiming space travel is a waste. For instance a single movie costs more then sending a robot to mars.
Talk split into a new thread.
Please - we are nowhere near getting off this planet - we can't even sustain a small Bio-Dome, let alone terraform Mars, we can't produce effective radiation shields (that we can power) to protect the colony, and we can't launch large payloads into space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The failure of the shuttle program has demonstrated just how far we would need to go, and that's before we ever even talk about getting out the Solar System. Unless something changes in our fundamental understanding of Physics we've basically established that FTL is impossible.
That's why we haven't been visited by Aliens, they can't get off their own planets.
"Failure of the shuttle program"?
The number of inventions resulting directly or indirectly from the shuttle program is to numerous to count. It was the defining project of the technology which created the age we live in now.
It was a complete success.
The space shuttle program generated a lot of technology as did the Apollo program before it.
The physics hasn't changed. But we've had the technology to go to Mars for quite some time.
A lot of the reasons we havn't come down to petty intrigues such as special interest group lobbying and pork barreling.
The cost of fuel to get a vehicle into orbit represents only a fraction of the total cost. Most of it is in manufacturing according to old methods in particular political hot zones. A lot of the space age tech and manufacturing is still stuck in the sixties.
Whilst NASA could be more efficient if it wasn't used as a pork barrel resource. It could obviously do more with more money. It's budget is about 5% of what is spent on sports. For instance the top ten sportsmen could privately pay to go to space out of their earnings... In short we pay more to adverts of Just Do It rather then going to space by a factor of twenty.
So Mad Men marketing spin for the win.
The purpose of the Shuttle Program was to create a viable re-usable space vehicle, but the program never got out of the testing phase - two shuttles exploded in flight and killed their crews, and it was demonstrated that disposable vehicles were more economical.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Failure.
Never know until you test.
Speaking of marketing spin:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home..._spinoffs.html
vast amounts of the "modern" life style (Mobile Phones, Personal Computers, GPS, scratch resistant glass, Memory Foam, Shoe Insoles, Cordless Tools, Water Filters, LED's and many many more) were either a direct result of the space program or were derivatives of technology that was
this alone means the space program was worth it
as for the Shuttle program - 135 missions were carried out with 2 accidents - they got their moneys worth
Destruction may well be imminent and we just don't know about it. There are many things out there that could wipe out life on earth without any warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Smaller chance that will kill us than our build spacecraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by jht
Lets stay on our Tuchanka a while longer I'd say.
The problem is a successful vehicle to travel across space to another planet, would be very much like the planet we live on. The time and distance basically requires a perpetual motion machine; that never ends well.
And an even smaller amount of resources to deplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I am so sick of the nostalgia that people constantly bring up when we start going down this path. Oh yeah, yeah there's been lots of technology spun off from them and you if you really closely you can see just how much influence there has been everywhere in society. But the fact is that none of what they did seems to have a direct impact on my life right now, everything that they did would have done eventually in time, and the cost of their actions has been tremendous when you look at the full history of it all.
I dare one person to give a satisfactory answer to the question:
What have the Romans ever done for us?
They made EB possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Do I need to spell it out for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not sure if serious....Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Tongue in check considering you are writing using a Latin alphabet.
I doubt you can mount a coherent argument without using a Latin alphabet or Babelfish to translate to Chinese or Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Umm I don't know if people understand my post was satirical. Asking what the space program has accomplished is like asking what the Romans have ever done for us. I agree the Romans have done a lot. Just like the space program has done a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Life of Brian... my bad... By you're still a naughty boy. ~:smoking:
The benefits have yet to show but in the meantime it keeps really smart people busy. I am way too dumb for it but science should always reach out imho. Moon-landing was a revelation of what is possible in the future so it was not useless at all.
Some people seem to think that innovation and scientific progress is something that happens in garages or in laboratories, with the aim of inventing something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's not how it happens.
What drives scientific progress are huge projects into new territory. The moon landing, the space shuttle, the LHC and major wars are such projects. They are what forces progress to happen. Thus, the real aim of such a project is never its stated aim. The main benefit and aim of the moon landing wasn't to put people on the moon, it was the zillion inventions and discoveries that happened because of it.
So, to label such projects as failures because they failed to achieve its stated aim is an attitude that will bring our technological progress to a halt, and if that attitude had dominated through history, we'd all be stuck in the stone age.
Ah but there could be plenty of ambitious projects on and focus on our earth. Also the LHC for one I'm less against also because it actually learns us more than shooting another moon rocket (the LHC probably contributes more to possible eventual space travel and really usefull technology that actually could help us, for example in the field of Energy production). Launching Satellites and research on that does so as well. One of my main gripes also has to do with the other thread it was originally posted in, namely the heritage it was build on. (I didn't post it out of the blue...)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I have seen the stats, but I can't find them now. The Shuttle program never "broke even", which in this case means that the program cost more in time and money than disposable rockets for the same number of missions over the same time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
If the Shuttle program had been extended to generation 2 and a larger fleet (say 20-30) shuttles had been built with proper escape chutes for the crew and a quicker and cheaper turn around, then the program would have been worth it. As it is, the Shuttle program basically never got out of the preliminary testing phase before it was abandoned.
Cube is right about the "Big picture" but right now we're in a developmental cul-de-sac that the physicist have stuck us in. General Relativity needs to be re-written to allow FTL or we need a power source an order of magnitude more efficient than Cold Fusion to be able to create wormholes.
We also need effective electromagnetic shielding to protect crews from cosmic rays before we can send them to Mars.
First you say that the shuttle program is bad because it's "shooting another moon rocket".Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
You then say that you favour research on launching satellites.
You honestly don't see the contradiction in supporting one over the other, seeing as they are the exact same thing?
I'm saying that if the project would have focused on Sattelite lauching it would have made more sense and more uses than the focus being on manned spaceflight. Especially to the moon. Satellite project that map for example deforestation and desertification have more use than someone planting a man on the moon. That doesn't mean it should have been the priority though. The LHC is one I can stand behind more than both afore mentioned ones. But I think there could have been many focal points for great government funded research projects that could have paid of more, been more in line with what we need and would have been more constructive to our future. Especially those deluded that we need to be able to escape this earth as fast as possible is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
“Lets stay on our Tuchanka a while longer I'd say” With or without thresher maw?
That's actually what you accomplish by launching space shuttles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
That, and providing your sneakers with more comfortable fabric, of course.
Even if you ignore the 'let's not go extinct' aspects, the commercial spin-off benefits of space exploration have already vastly surpassed the costs that all governments have spent on it.
Here's direct NASA spin-offs alone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
That doesn't even include major stuff like satellite communication, surveying, and weather monitoring technologies. Next time you use GPS or Google Maps to find your way someplace, thank human space exploration.
Why would there be no commercial gain on other large research practices, based on earth? Why would most not have also come from satellite projects either? And why does one suggest putting the man on the moon was essential to satellite launching, it wasn't? Do you launch people with satellites? No.
(Edit: most investments in research and technology end up, making more profit than the initial cost, that's what investments are for)
Are better sneekers also a good excuse why no-one cared about what happened to the V1 and V2 project leaders after WWII?
Also Brennus, Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species whose progeny is supposed to make other planets their home. We'll get one here in time as well. ~;)
"Thresher Maws are a multi-planet species" I had noticed, thanks. Gave me a lot of sweat in Mass Effect the first... Specially one on a icy planet...:laugh4:
I don't really understand your position, Moros: we could, with unprecedented international cooperation and organizational optimization, have achieved a super-duper awesome result -
so it really, really sucks that we achieved only a super-awesome result?
You get no porridge tonight, Moros.Quote:
Dereva ni rubil, kashu ni varil, vodu ni kipitil...
Sliced bread is overrated.
I said it was an incredible feat of technology and dedication. But whether it was as great as was previously suggested is a different matter. Especially at the cost of human decency. (connected with the rape 3 thread and the V1, V2 rockets)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The reasons that later backed up the claim for making it one of man's greatest feats were then merely said to have been commercial gain, others said it was necessary to be able to get away from this planet in the near future. While the last is so untrue, the other isn't limited to a project that wanted to put people on rocks somewhere in space.
My point is thus that it isn't one of man's greatest deeds. Perhaps I just have another definition of what constitutes a great deed. Nor does it in my eyes make it up for ignoring war crimes. What I'm saying thus would be, if I were to have been in charge I'd rather wouldn't have my eyes shut for data and technology and would have invested in different scientific research. Is that such Blasphemy or weird?
I'm not saying planting flags on the moon isn't cool. If a friend of mine would do it, I'd utter a 'woha' at least. But humanity as a whole or large and advanced nation can do and should do greater things. At least in theory, sadly enough.
Yeah in the first game, I got a heart attack when that thing showed up out of nowhere while I was exploring on foot. In ME2 it wasn't that much special though. A tad hard if you forgot to bring a heavy weapon, carrying a cain that wasn't fully loaded or something. But in ME1 those were scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
To get a critical mass of great minds together, paid for and most importantly motivated you have to have something that draws them together.
I'm no where as inspired by Voyager II as I am by Apollo XI.
I'm sure more people would take note of a manned mission to mars then a remote control vehicle.
=][=
Whilst all current evidence points to us being alone in the universe, I don't think it is a good thing to stay in a single cave when we could go out and discover our surroundings.
Imminent to someone who has studied geology is on a slightly larger timescale then what I will have for lunch. 65 million years ago the dominate life forms on earth were wiped out. We are not in any better position. In fact with our technology we are in a more fragile one. A single virus spread by plane, train and automobile could be dealy to us. Climate change natural or man made could be deadly to us. And we still can't stop a mass extinction event asteroid. Nuclear or Biological warfare has the ability to clean us off the face of the earth.
So right now we are actually in a more perilous state then the dinosaurs and all they had was brains the size of walnuts...
Size equals speed. You'll find out a lot more a lot quicker about how to fling things into space if you try flinging something big with people in it than you will with small(er) satellites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Then there's the issue of resources. A small, lower profile project will drown in the midst of others. A big, high profile one pushing the boundaries, on the other hand, is bound to draw in the very best human resources. And when you put the brains together, it will lead to all sorts of new discoveries and inventions.
Thirdly, most of the discoveries and inventions from project X will have no use in project X, but will find use elsewhere. Again, the bigger and more complex the project, the more inventions you get.
And lastly, the knowledge gained from the moon landing project was indeed absolutely crucial to satellite communications( and a zillion other things).
You admit that we got quite a lot of tech out of the programs, right? You just posit that an entirely different emphasis would have given us more and more useful tech -as far as my understanding of your posts goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
I'm not even trying to address whether or not it might have worked out that way, though I'll admit I'm not convinced. It's just that you sound like a stereotypical Chinese FOB parent:
Quote:
You only get A on test? Why not A+?
You grounded for two week!
Uh... so basically you're saying that we could have created satellites without developing space technology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
I think you are all missing an important point.
The beauty of space research is it is not disruptive of social order. It deflects resources to an enterprise that "we" participate in, can take pride in and elevate our assessment of ourselves for having done; without jostling in any meaningful way our social structure. Importantly, the people I could look down on before the event, are still right where they "should" be; the people I look up to...well some have been elevated in fame, but I look up to them already, so meh.
So its a safe way to spend surplus that does not threaten anyone; symbol creation rather than social transformation.
Err... no.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I said you don't need to send people in outer space to learn how to launch satellites in outer space. You can do that by trying to launch satellites into outer space.
Why would the moonlanding be the only possible advanced research project? Why would the moonlanding be the only thing drawing in scientists?
Scientist aren't gamers who need fancy things. They can knock themselves out with the most abstract ideas and research. And I think that projects such as the LHC attract enough brilliant minds for one. It even sounds like something scientists are even more interested in, the riddle solvers they are. Financing is of course important, but it is not like they were getting money or gold on the moon.
But that aside why does it justify, ignoring war crimes? Why is getting useful technology out of a research project only significant if it involves landing on a natural satellite, planetoid,...? Also if the earth is so much more susceptible to disasters, it means we only have fewer time to find solutions. We all know that space travel is far from being a reality, much further than any research projects helping to extend life on our own planet. If we put that budget into energy research, we could have made life quite a bit more easy and extend/solve real threatening problems for example. We would probably even have quite the budget left for more and other research.
Ok, so you're only disputing the utility of manned spaceflight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
In any case, your entire line of reasoning is a bit dubious. We are all humans. One of our common uniting aspects is our desire to explore the unknown. All societies have explored the boundaries of their world as far as their technology would permit, and as soon as new technology was developed that opened the possibility of further exploration, that exploration was done. Space is just another boundary. The very idea that there is even a cost/benefit analysis to be performed is a bit silly. Space exists and we are human; therefore we will explore it regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. We might as well embrace it, because that is who we are.
Would you really want to live in a world where humans were not curious about the unknown?
A while back during the "Judging History" thread, Strike for the South told me that if I view history through my own lens, I will never understand history, go back to your physics book knave.
I think this is a situation where the roles have now reversed between Moros and the scientifically trained.
Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes and is measurement of greatness. It appears I was rather deluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Power is a good reason to ignore war crimes.Quote:
Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes
Von Braun probably had a longer sentence then many of the Gestapo. He was a prisoner of peace for quite sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
The scientists became part of the recoup cost of the war. If anything it really was the only capital worth taking from the defeated Axis as they were bleed dry at that point. Much better then fining them billions and laying the foundations for another World War.
=][=
As a fan of science and someone with a multidisciplinary science degree; I've worked in exploration and IT. The scope and breadth of science means that not all of us are interested or suitable for all areas of science or technology. We are also not all attracted to the same area.
All bar one of the physics students I did my undergrad with like space. Ironically the one left over worked on satellites...
That's something of a non sequitur. If you're going to invalidate all benefits of an entire industry based on the actions of a subset of those people, you might as well invalidate all good that has ever been done by anyone in all of human history. Every single field ever created has been used by someone somewhere to do something horrible. You might as well just turn off your computer and throw it away, as the computer itself has caused countless deaths and misery. The modern computer itself was created as a machine of war. I therefore expect to never see you reply to this thread since you will clearly be so outraged that you will never get online again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros