SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 At Home.. coordless Power Tools and Appliances Smoke Detector Clean Water for the Home Home Insulation Polar Sun Glasses At the Hospital "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery Space Telescope Looks for Cancer Body Imaging New Arms and Legs Infrared Thermometer Light emitting diodes (LED) Composite Forceps Pill-Sized Transmitter Chromosome Analysis Digital Mammography Camera on a Chip At the Airport Lightning Protection Windshear Prediction Collision Avoidance At the Statidum Helmet Padding Golfball Aerodynamics At the museum NASA Technology Watches Over Historic Documents Space Age Archeology Looking for a Hidden Masterpiece Dead Sea Scrolls Brought to Life At the farm Robotic Mother Pig Crop Management from Orbit - No Small Potatoes! Crop Dusters Improve Their Aim At the Fire Station Firefighter Breathing System Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools For the World Fishing from Orbit ( we track the health of our oceans via satalites). Feeding the World - And Other Worlds Too Caring for the Oceans Preventing Landmine Explosions Oil Spill Control - None of Your Beeswax! "Tailprints" Tell a Whale of a Tale Fighting Forest Fires Science Virtual Reality - NASA Explores Another New World Laser Sharp! Global Communications Telecommunications and Airospace (Boeing) are basically our best/most lucrative export sectors, along with Movies and Farm Produce. Both come from the space program. So all of these things could only have been created via government funds and not by private industry (ie: Boeing that was cited)? These are not benefits from the space program per se, these are benefits from private companies who happened to contract with NASA and used funds allocated from taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 At Home.. coordless Power Tools and Appliances Smoke Detector Clean Water for the Home Home Insulation Polar Sun Glasses At the Hospital "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery Space Telescope Looks for Cancer Body Imaging New Arms and Legs Infrared Thermometer Light emitting diodes (LED) Composite Forceps Pill-Sized Transmitter Chromosome Analysis Digital Mammography Camera on a Chip At the Airport Lightning Protection Windshear Prediction Collision Avoidance At the Statidum Helmet Padding Golfball Aerodynamics At the museum NASA Technology Watches Over Historic Documents Space Age Archeology Looking for a Hidden Masterpiece Dead Sea Scrolls Brought to Life At the farm Robotic Mother Pig Crop Management from Orbit - No Small Potatoes! Crop Dusters Improve Their Aim At the Fire Station Firefighter Breathing System Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools For the World Fishing from Orbit ( we track the health of our oceans via satalites). Feeding the World - And Other Worlds Too Caring for the Oceans Preventing Landmine Explosions Oil Spill Control - None of Your Beeswax! "Tailprints" Tell a Whale of a Tale Fighting Forest Fires Science Virtual Reality - NASA Explores Another New World Laser Sharp! Global Communications Telecommunications and Airospace (Boeing) are basically our best/most lucrative export sectors, along with Movies and Farm Produce. Both come from the space program. The question wasn't well-phrased....what are the benefits of manned-space flight? No one is going to question the needs for satellites. But we don't need to send up seven astronauts in a station wagon every five months (And Kill them every 20 years or so) to get those benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Yeah because the technology which came out of the space program in the 60's and 70's, in engineering, in materials, in computers, and in telecommunications weren't worth the investment?The original gemini, mercury, and appolo programs have more than paid for themseves over the years. Are you saying that these technologies could only have been created due to a space program? Also, arent you leaving out a few decades of heavilly invested funds like the 80's, 90's, and 00's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Why can't we just sit on our asses and wait for someone else to achieve it? I keep repeating myself, but aren't there a million more efficient ways to advance technology than through NASA? Steve Jobs launched a revolution out of his garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 This is an easy, tug at the hearts proposal aimed at the baby boomers who have a romantic ideal of the Apollo missions. I doubt it was anything less cynical than this at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Are you saying that these technologies could only have been created due to a space program? Also, arent you leaving out a few decades of heavilly invested funds like the 80's, 90's, and 00's? You're working really hard, man :laugh: These things were developed through the space program. A long list that has changed the way we all live today and largely for the better. Could they have been developed without the Space Program? Who knows. Probably, but the fact is that the space program brought certain problems to bare which led to innovations that help us all today. I think that's really inarguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I keep repeating myself' date=' but aren't there a million more efficient ways to advance technology than through NASA? Steve Jobs launched a revolution out of his garage.[/quote']exactly... Didnt someone recently win a contest for inventing a manned space craft that flew twice in a week for a mere $10M, yet each launch from the "non-wasteful" NASA runs in the 1-2 Billions? also, I read somewhere that over 1/5 of NASA's budget goes to silly pork for things like museums, school equipment,and a Web site for an aquarium and a research group in West Virginia. Space research should be left to private industry that has always proven they can do it better and cheaper in the long run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 You're working really hard, man :laugh:These things were developed through the space program. A long list that has changed the way we all live today and largely for the better. Could they have been developed without the Space Program? Who knows. Probably, but the fact is that the space program brought certain problems to bare which led to innovations that help us all today. I think that's really inarguable. How does that support the argument that NASA isnt wasteful in it's spending again? Every single "benefit" from the space program was either created by private industry or done in conditions on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 You're working really hard, man :laugh:These things were developed through the space program. A long list that has changed the way we all live today and largely for the better. Could they have been developed without the Space Program? Who knows. Probably, but the fact is that the space program brought certain problems to bare which led to innovations that help us all today. I think that's really inarguable. And World War II brought us penicillin, radar, and atomic energy. Those no reason to continue it indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 In light of the re-appearance of the commies, I want to hear which candidate is going to increase the NASA budget to keep the shuttle flying until we get out next system up and running It's beyond stupid to rely on the commies for rides to our own station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Space research should be left to private industry that has always proven they can do it better and cheaper in the long run You and I disagree there. I believe that there is a place for NASA. I don't think we necessarily want private industry possessing ballistic missles. And I don't think we should outsource the launching of military satellites and such. The real waste in NASA is in the manned space flights. I'm for cutting that program all together. If we had directed the funds that have gone into the space shuttle and internation space station into something actually beneficial, God only knows what could have been accomplished. The problem with NASA is that all the glory comes form the manned missions even though next to nothing is achieved through them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 In light of the re-appearance of the commies, I want to hear which candidate is going to increase the NASA budget to keep the shuttle flying until we get out next system up and runningIt's beyond stupid to rely on the commies for rides to our own station what would be the problem of relying on SpaceShipOne that claimed the $10 million Ansari X Prize when it climbed into suborbital space twice within five days instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 You and I disagree there. I believe that there is a place for NASA. I don't think we necessarily want private industry possessing ballistic missles. And I don't think we should outsource the launching of military satellites and such.The real waste in NASA is in the manned space flights. I'm for cutting that program all together. If we had directed the funds that have gone into the space shuttle and internation space station into something actually beneficial' date=' God only knows what could have been accomplished. The problem with NASA is that all the glory comes form the manned missions even though next to nothing is achieved through them.[/quote'] I can live with that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 In light of the re-appearance of the commies, I want to hear which candidate is going to increase the NASA budget to keep the shuttle flying until we get out next system up and runningIt's beyond stupid to rely on the commies for rides to our own station The whole idea of the space station is stupid. At a minimum, we are looking at $50 Billion for six years of real service doing....something that no one can really explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 another senseless waste of tax dollars with very little return on investment. At Home.. coordless Power Tools and Appliances Smoke Detector Clean Water for the Home Home Insulation Polar Sun Glasses At the Hospital "Cool" Laser Heart Surgery Space Telescope Looks for Cancer Body Imaging New Arms and Legs Infrared Thermometer Light emitting diodes (LED) Composite Forceps Pill-Sized Transmitter Chromosome Analysis Digital Mammography Camera on a Chip At the Airport Lightning Protection Windshear Prediction Collision Avoidance At the Statidum Helmet Padding Golfball Aerodynamics At the museum NASA Technology Watches Over Historic Documents Space Age Archeology Looking for a Hidden Masterpiece Dead Sea Scrolls Brought to Life At the farm Robotic Mother Pig Crop Management from Orbit - No Small Potatoes! Crop Dusters Improve Their Aim At the Fire Station Firefighter Breathing System Powerful Jaws for Rescue Tools For the World Fishing from Orbit ( we track the health of our oceans via satalites). Feeding the World - And Other Worlds Too Caring for the Oceans Preventing Landmine Explosions Oil Spill Control - None of Your Beeswax! "Tailprints" Tell a Whale of a Tale Fighting Forest Fires Science Virtual Reality - NASA Explores Another New World Laser Sharp! Global Communications Telecommunications and Airospace (Boeing) are basically our best/most lucrative export sectors, along with Movies and Farm Produce. Both come from the space program. How does that support the argument that NASA isnt wasteful in it's spending again? Every single "benefit" from the space program was either created by private industry or done in conditions on earth. Private industry that was funded by space industry and innovations that were made on Earth that were discovered because they were trying to solve a problem that they needed to deal with out there. The harder the challenge you set yourself, the more solutions you come up with. Lombardi, I don't necessarily disagree with you that the money could have much better immediate purposes, but I would also caution that there is a lot more to be tapped from space. More, there is value in morale and pride and what could be cooler than uniting private and public and elbow grease and doing the impossible. One of the great things about the space race was beating the Ruskies and showing the world and ourselves that we can do anything. America has lost some of its can do spirit. It wouldn't be a bad idea to challenge ourselves anew. I'm not sure that this is the correct challenge, but we need to remobilize our energy and spirit somehow. Far too much doom and gloom and apathy out there. Far too much caution and greed and selfishness and short, short, short term thinking too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I've always thought Gregg Easterbrook makes the most sense on this issue: Here is a set of rational priorities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in descending order of importance: (1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet. (2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit. Here are NASA's apparent current priorities: (1) Maintain a pointless space station. (2) Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and congressional districts. http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-06/ff_space_nasa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 So all of these things could only have been created via government funds and not by private industry (ie: Boeing that was cited)?These are not benefits from the space program per se, these are benefits from private companies who happened to contract with NASA and used funds allocated from taxes. So your argument is "those aren't benefits of the space program, those are benefits of space program contracts"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I knew it, Obama is a flaming liberal just like Bush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Space research should be left to private industry that has always proven they can do it better and cheaper in the long run well then why haven't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 So your argument is "those aren't benefits of the space program, those are benefits of space program contracts"? My argument is that those were private corporations, not nasa scientists that created those things. Why should tax dollars pay for what can be done better privately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 what would be the problem of relying on SpaceShipOne that claimed the $10 million Ansari X Prize when it climbed into suborbital space twice within five days instead? The fact that it's incapable of accomplishing the mission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 well then why haven't they? UMMM, they have. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/04/spaceshipone.attempt.cnn/ Larry, why do you say that private industry is "incapable" of completing the mission? I dont see what the basis of your opinion is in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 My argument is that those were private corporations, not nasa scientists that created those things. Why should tax dollars pay for what can be done better privately? Yep, you're right. If NASA hadn't paid for that research, those companies would have done it, anyway, since everybody knows that private industry really likes spending money on research which (according to you) has no practical benefit whatsoever. In fact, I think the Pentagon should immediately stop paying for aircraft carriers and planes and things. All of them are built by private industry, anyway. Why should the taxpayers pay for something which private industry is doing, anyway. I'm certain that is the government stops paying for aircraft carriers, private industry will build them, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 UMMM, they have.http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/04/spaceshipone.attempt.cnn/ Larry, why do you say that private industry is "incapable" of completing the mission? I dont see what the basis of your opinion is in this? Spaceship One isn't even remotely close to being capable of orbital insertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Yep, you're right. If NASA hadn't paid for that research, those companies would have done it, anyway, since everybody knows that private industry really likes spending money on research which (according to you) has no practical benefit whatsoever. In fact, I think the Pentagon should immediately stop paying for aircraft carriers and planes and things. All of them are built by private industry, anyway. Why should the taxpayers pay for something which private industry is doing, anyway. I'm certain that is the government stops paying for aircraft carriers, private industry will build them, anyway. apples and oranges, aircraft carriers are part of the military budget and needed for national defense. If you are advancing a theory that NASA should be funded as a military budget, I'll surely listen, as that makes sense. But fact is, is just another bloated program that doesnt yiled a significant return for what has been sent for the past 20 years. Again, why should it be funded via taxation, in a time of economic strife, if it's something that can be handled by the private sector. Branson of Virgin claims that his future space flights (using the spaceshipone technology) would only cost an average of a few hundred thousand per launch. Why does it take multiple billions to fly some astrobaughts and equipment to the ISS just one time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.