Remembering Space Heroes

[Member2019]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

Well concidering that many in the scienctific community disagree with you, and I'm sure their credentials are much greater than yours, it seems that your statement is very arrogant, let alone down right pessemistic. Almost seems like you wish that we never make any real break throughs in space exploration. Pretty sad really. If people had your additude we would still be living in the stone age.

The one thing I have a continued problem with is people who don't research our actual federal and various state budgets to see where money actually goes.
They talk about how NASA's money can be "better spent" on various items, but then when you actually compare the dollar figures, it's chump change in most cases.

I think taking the small amount NASA is given for pure and applied research pays good dividens on the returns.
At least as compared to throwing more money at various problems that already get budgets -- between the federal and all states -- many times more.

That includes everything from federal and state funds put to childcare, education, major medical research and other items.
Throwing another few billion a year isn't going to guarantee faster breakthroughs, whereas cutting NASA's budget will definitely bring many things to a halt.

Let alone I could see the arguments made over what is "more worthy" and then NASA's budget being broken up piecemeal and netting only a few tens of million to different programs.

 

[member2686]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

Tom, I'm more concerned about poverty/starvation/death here on earth than sending 3 people in some contraption to Pluto to see if hamsters can mate there or to see if magnesium is in a rock there on the surface.

Call me silly, ignorant, arrogant, or pessimistic (or anything else) if you want, but addressing our current world woes and problems by the humanity-based reallocation of (what I see to be as ******/frivolously-spent) publicly collected funds (taxes) does more good for us than a hamster experiment on some far-flung planet. lol

Since my post last night in this thread, another 20,000+ ******** died on our planet due to lack of food and healthcare. To ME, addressing THAT issue is far more important than these probes to see how many rocks are floating in the 12th ring of Saturn, etc.

As I wrote before in this thread, I am not objecting, wholesale, to space exploration at all, but IMO we spend entirely too much money on it - money that could be better-used HERE rather than on purely academic "experiments" in space.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I respect you, your opinion, and your enthusiasm on this issue, but I just don't happen to agree with you full-forcedly on this topic. :hatsoff:

:2 cents:

Well concidering that many in the scienctific community disagree with you, and I'm sure their credentials are much greater than yours, it seems that your statement is very arrogant, let alone down right pessemistic. Almost seems like you wish that we never make any real break throughs in space exploration. Pretty sad really. If people had your additude we would still be living in the stone age.

 

[McRocket]

Our endeavors into space exploration, globally, are still important, but sometimes I feel that they're pointless and futile (not to mention incredibly expensive and a terrible tax burden). We cannot possibly travel far enough (with live human beings) on-board a spacecraft into space to gather information about the distant lengths of the universe. We can do so remotely, via satellites and probes that are sent out, but honestly I don't see us as humans ever leaving the earth for any duration or in any significant numbers. It makes for good books and some fun movies and TV shows, but IMO it's fantasy and delusional.

It's cool that we (people) reached/landed on the moon, and that's monumental itself, but IMO space exploration should be more academic than for "practical" purposes, and also perhaps we should spend less money on space exploration and more on taking care of each other HERE on OUR planet, where 27,000 ******** every day (globally) die of starvation, disease, and homelessness/orphanism.

:2 cents:

I totally agree with these two paragraphs. Great post.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

Tom, I'm more concerned about poverty/starvation/death here on earth than sending 3 people in some contraption to Pluto to see if hamsters can mate there or to see if magnesium is in a rock there on the surface.

You seem to not understand that I *AGREE* with you.
I believe the state and federal we should put 100x more to taking care of ****, education, poverty, medical care, etc... than pure scientific research, exaterrestrial probes, etc...
And that's what we *DO* do!
If you gutted NASA's budget, you'd have either a fractional boost to just *1* SMALLER federal or all state social projects, or chump change to an assortment.

One could even argue that all federal "pure scientific research" (which is largely NASA) gets "short-changed" compared to just to *1* specific social service.
That if someone took away $1 from that social program and put it to NASA, NASA could do more with it because the social program is over-funded and there is already a point of diminishing returns.

But I'm not making that statement. I'm just saying that NASA's small budget won't make a dent in the collective number of federal social programs the US has -- much less people don't realize how much the state governments collectively spend on ********, education, etc...
And even if you get very, very specific -- and everyone agreed on *1* program to donate all of NASA's budget to -- how much of a dent would it really make?

Call me silly, ignorant, arrogant, or pessimistic (or anything else) if you want, but addressing our current world woes and problems by the humanity-based reallocation of (what I see to be as ******/frivolously-spent) publicly collected funds (taxes) does more good for us than a hamster experiment on some far-flung planet. lol

Instead of focusing on the $50M spend here or there in NASA, why not look at OTHER federal programs that study STUPID things as well?!?!?!
No offense, but I get tired of the "double standard" that NASA is scrutinized against -- people complain about this or that, when I can show you BILLIONS of dollars in other departments that are even less helpful!
Even some media personalities are starting to talk about the multi-million dollar federal studies to see why some single people don't have sex and other social habits.
I don't really consider it of federal interest or benefit to the tax payer to try to improve the number of single people having sex.

And that's just *1* example!

Since my post last night in this thread, another 20,000+ ******** died on our planet due to lack of food and healthcare. To ME, addressing THAT issue is far more important than these probes to see how many rocks are floating in the 12th ring of Saturn, etc.

I AGREE!
And I also think it's more important than finding out why some people don't have sex too!

As I wrote before in this thread, I am not objecting, wholesale, to space exploration at all, but IMO we spend entirely too much money on it - money that could be better-used HERE rather than on purely academic "experiments" in space.

You should really look at NASA's budget, and where the money goes.
The price of a space probe has gone done SIGNIFICANTLY compared to just a few decades ago.
NASA continues to do more with less, and until W. came along, it had been REALLY GUTTED!

I walked into one of the ground stations out at KSC a few years ago.
My foot went through the floorboard and the equipment was corroding.
This was a safety-crucial system, but they couldn't get budget just for upkeep.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I respect you, your opinion, and your enthusiasm on this issue, but I just don't happen to agree with you full-forcedly on this topic. :hatsoff:

I think you're singling out NASA, when there is far more gross mis-appropriation of federal funds in other programs.
You should start with some of the programs that have 10x the budget of NASA.
Some will shock you!

 

[McRocket]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

A few billion a year wouldn't help feed and edcuation more **** -- as you should look at the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year by the states (far more than the federal) that it actually costs!

WHAT???

Give that money to the Stephen Lewis foundation. I guaranfriggintee you that you will save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Or UNICEF.
Or ****** Parents Plan (to which I give almost 5% of my net income per year).
Or...

Man, you are clearly very bright. But you and The Captain really have apparently lost a little perspective on the world.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

"Will a chicken lose its feathers in zero-gravity?" Who the fuck cares!? We're never going to have chickens walking around on the moon (or wherever we eventually set up some "base camps"); little chicken oxygen suits would be prohibitively expensive and completely unusable anyway. lol



:2 cents:

I am not trying to kiss your butt or anything because we caused each other to get ******.

But that is the funniest thing I have read on here in awhile.

I am still laughing.

 

[McRocket]

Oh, and I do not call those that died as you mentioned heroes. They were brave and rather fearless. But heroes? Just because they died on a multi billion dollar spacecraft? Not to me.
I am against the War in Iraq bigtime. But...if you want to find a hero. GO to Iraq and find the American soldier who just had his arm shot off by an RPG and is slowly ******** to death alone while leaning against a wall. Surrounded by strangers who **** him and about to die thousands of miles from home. And all because he believed that he was truly helping to make Iraq and the United States a better place.
He knowingly sacrificed his life for someone else. And this particular soldier, if told he WAS going to die if he volunteered, still would volunteer.

Would Grissom, Chaffee and White volunteered to stay in the capsule knowing it would catch fire? Or course not.

Would the 14 people on those two shuttles have gone on the flights if they were guaranteed to be ******? Of course not.
But that soldier knew he would probably be ****** when, after having been seperated from his unit, he went to help a small ***** that was caught in some crossfire - knowing he would probably not survive.
Even so. He managed to get the ***** to her terrified ******. But the RPG round hit on his way back to finding his unit.
That's a hero.
I am very sorry those men and women died on those missions (and test runs). And they maybe heros in other ways. And they should be remembered by all.
But so should that man that now lays slowly ******** to death. But he won't be. He will just be another number added to the total US casualty list.
THAT to me is a tragedy.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

WHAT???
Give that money to the Stephen Lewis foundation. I guaranfriggintee you that you will save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Or UNICEF.
Or ****** Parents Plan (to which I give almost 5% of my net income per year).
Or...
Man, you are clearly very bright. But you and The Captain really have apparently lost a little perspective on the world.

But who says those are the charities they should go to? Does everyone agree?
Who says that if the federal government got the money back, they'd actually get directed to worthwhile ventures as you mentioned?
Let alone that throwing money at some problems will produce better results for our future than no money to something?

Throwing more money at a problem doesn't linearly scale its benefit.
In fact, NASA in the '60s is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of that.
NASA was OVERFUNDED in the '60s to get to the moon sooner than we needed to.
Now NASA works on more of a "reality" footing, and people get much better results for their buck.

I don't think we should gut any program that actually has some use.
And that includes most social services too.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not saying we should expense ANY program for another.
That's EXACTLY what you're saying.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

But who says those are the charities they should go to? Does everyone agree?
Who says that if the federal government got the money back, they'd actually get directed to worthwhile ventures as you mentioned?
Let alone that throwing money at some problems will produce better results for our future than no money to something?

Governments are usually useless at spending money properly. That is why I suggested some private organizations.

I don't think we should gut any program that actually has some use.
And that includes most social services too.

Well, I never actually typed we should gut any programs. I was (this time) simply replying to your billions of dollars statement.
However, I do think that NASA funding should come more from the private sector then the public.
Yes, keep researching ways to deflect asteroids and all that. But scientific research should be left to corporations on a for profit basis.
The only reason NASA got so big was the space race with the Soviets. And if the US wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon (though their Moon rockets always blew up after launch) they HAD to use public money. Fair enough. But that is over. All projects that are not directly to do with national security or human safety should be shelved - unless the public agrees to fund each project individually through referendum during national elections.
Everything else should be funded privately. If Americans want to get men/women to Mars? Fine. Let NASA get their funds directly from the public. Not through a general funding through Congress.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Small steps for small bucks ...

Governments are usually useless at spending money properly. That is why I suggested some private organizations.

Actually, this has already happened, with NASA being the incubator in decades prior.
I don't think nearly as much money needed to be spent that was though, but that's the moon shot for you.

Applied science continues to be heavily corporation-funded. I don't think you give our US economy much credit, NASA isn't doing a fraction of it, let alone not DARPA (under the DoD) either.

But for pure science, most corporations aren't interested, and never will be.
Sometimes you have to incubate things in a social program to see them adopted widely.

In fact, one could make the argument that incubating technology under a social program helps our future economy far more than many social programs -- especially when you look away from the young and look at the old. I'm just kinda curious why you're so fixated on just NASA, when there's are BILLIONS spent in other departments that I think should go to more worthy agencies.

Heck, one could even argue the Baby Boomers are now the issue as they are retiring. Some are voting more for their own interest than the future of our ******** and the next generations. Lack of any social security reform comes to mind.

 

[McRocket]

I am just mentioning NASA because that is the subject at hand the two times we got into discussions over this.

The US let's Iraqi's decide when they want the US to leave (which is now) and presto, the US saves ALOT more then getting rid of NASA ever could (on a per year cost basis).

And what about spending billions to rebuild New Orleans?

No, there are definitely many other 'programs' that need cutting more then NASA. Imo.

 

[Member2019]

I am just mentioning NASA because that is the subject at hand the two times we got into discussions over this.
The US let's Iraqi's decide when they want the US to leave (which is now) and presto, the US saves ALOT more then getting rid of NASA ever could (on a per year cost basis).

Umm, dude, do you even KNOW what NASA's budget it?
It's was $16.5B in 2005 -- and a LOT of that was just upkeep on the aging STS program.
Imagine if Apollo had 100+ launches, and had to be maintained for more than just the 5 years it flew!

Now you add up the last 6 years of NASA, and still do NOT have what the Iraq war costs us in the first year!

NASA also engulfs much more, with dozens as many programs, as it did in the '60s and '70s -- especially the non-launch vehicle operations.
Many former Air ***** programs are now under NASA's budget as well, and they are not considered compared to the more "100% civilian" aspects decades ago.

No, there's no "Buck Rogers" anymore.
Today you've got a lot of smaller, less publicized programs.
So people don't think they are getting their money's worth because it's "boring scientific research."

And what about spending billions to rebuild New Orleans?

I'm not even going to touch that because my views on New Orleans are as "political incorrect" as Neil Boortz, who is heavily mis-quoted.

No, there are definitely many other 'programs' that need cutting more then NASA. Imo.

Dude, you really need to research some REAL DOLLAR FIGURES!

 

[McRocket]

I think you misunderstood me. I said that other programs should be cut BEFORE NASA should be. Are you argueing for the other side?

And yes I was aware of NASA's approximate budget. Well, I assumed it was between 15 and 20 billion US.

 

[jdb67]

According to one source (see link), most space debris will not fall to earth for thousands and even millions of years, and the vast majority of what does fall to earth will incinerate itself when it hits the upper atmosphere. The problem is that the debris is a serious hazard for anyone leaving Earth to travel into space (ie: the space shuttle). A piece of space debris the size of a small marble, traveling at 22,000 miles per hour, has the kinetic energy of a 400 pound safe dropped from about 100 feet.

You should find this interesting:
Premium Link Upgrade

thanks Mate, that was an eye opener!!...

 

[member2686]

Semi-off-topic... I think you mean Premium Link Upgrade and, coincidentally, he's a friend of mine (we disagree on many things, but I admire and love him lol). Also, a VERY good, personal friend of mine actually writes the bulk of "NEALZ NUZE" on Neal's website; Neal doesn't have the time to do very much show-prep himself.

Neal is "the bomb" as a talk radio personality/host - brilliant, very talented, a great guy, etc., but I find him often a bit too conservative since he declares himself to be a "libertarian." But hey, he knows who "butters his bread" and he plays his role accordingly.

:2 cents:

...I'm not even going to touch that because my views on New Orleans are as "political incorrect" as Neil Boortz, who is heavily mis-quoted...