Space Programme: Overrated or Best thing since sliced bread?

[Moros]

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.

[Brenus]

"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...

[Montmorency]

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?

Dereva ni rubil, kashu ni varil, vodu ni kipitil...

You get no porridge tonight, Moros.

[Greyblades]

Sliced bread is overrated.

[Moros]

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.

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)

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.

"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...

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.

[Papewaio]

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...

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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).

[Montmorency]

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.

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.

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:

You only get A on test? Why not A+?

You grounded for two week!

[TinCow]

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.

Uh... so basically you're saying that we could have created satellites without developing space technology?

[HopAlongBunny]

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.

[Moros]

Uh... so basically you're saying that we could have created satellites without developing space technology?

Err... no.
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.

[TinCow]

Err... no.
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?

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 completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Moros]

Ok, so you're only disputing the utility of manned spaceflight?

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?

Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes and is measurement of greatness. It appears I was rather deluded.

[Montmorency]

Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes

Power is a good reason to ignore war crimes.

[Papewaio]

Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes and is measurement of greatness. It appears I was rather deluded.

Von Braun probably had a longer sentence then many of the Gestapo. He was a prisoner of peace for quite sometime.

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...

[TinCow]

Curiosity is a good reason to ignore warcrimes and is measurement of greatness.

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.