Unmanned SUV ridiculous NASA relevance debate thread
08-08-2012, 11:23 AM
#23
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
mars isn't the only thing you learn about.
lighter materials
communications across great distances (and data compression and latency)
off road vehicle dynamics
robotics
I'm going to stop there and tell you to stop being an anti-knowledge curmudgeon.
lighter materials
communications across great distances (and data compression and latency)
off road vehicle dynamics
robotics
I'm going to stop there and tell you to stop being an anti-knowledge curmudgeon.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 11:26 AM
#24
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I think the question is legitimate and most of the answers have been less than compelling, so - as a non-space nerd - I will attempt my hand. Too bad Senor Perez is off-grid.
You can make the argument that pushing the boundaries of engineering involved in space exploration - an exercise with limited visibility in terms of tangible return on investment - has led to some great innovations that "trickle down" to the civillian and military population. Think about your smart phone.
In addition to the obvious GPS, consider the size and computing power. How much of that was directly influenced by the engineering need to continually reduce the size of the computers fitted first to the Apollo program and then, later the space shuttle and satellite launchers?
You can make the argument that pushing the boundaries of engineering involved in space exploration - an exercise with limited visibility in terms of tangible return on investment - has led to some great innovations that "trickle down" to the civillian and military population. Think about your smart phone.
In addition to the obvious GPS, consider the size and computing power. How much of that was directly influenced by the engineering need to continually reduce the size of the computers fitted first to the Apollo program and then, later the space shuttle and satellite launchers?
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 11:35 AM
#27
Wait a second...we need to be clear here.
Is the claim that miniaturization and efficiency gains were unique to the space program? Because I'm fairly confident that engineers have been trying to make things smaller and use less energy for centuries before NASA was created.
Or is the claim simply that the actual hardware in modern cell phones (to use your example) has direct (whether concrete or conceptual) links to NASA-created/funded technologies? If that's the argument, then it seems to me that it requires an additional argument that must be supported -- namely, that these things were only possible with the existence of NASA and could not have happened in some NASA-less alternate history.
If these things were possible outside of NASA, then I anticipate that the next argument offered would be that rate of improvement was multiplied greatly by the space program research, and modern technology would be set back by 10 or 25 or 50 years absent the space program.
If that's the argument, then I think we need a broader argument justifying the use of government funding for any tech/science research. If the practical improvements in everyday life are the real goal, then why not use government funding applied directly, rather than paying for a space program that may have some practical application years later as the technology trickles down to consumer products, but certainly isn't an efficient plan to improve modern life?
Is the claim that miniaturization and efficiency gains were unique to the space program? Because I'm fairly confident that engineers have been trying to make things smaller and use less energy for centuries before NASA was created.
Or is the claim simply that the actual hardware in modern cell phones (to use your example) has direct (whether concrete or conceptual) links to NASA-created/funded technologies? If that's the argument, then it seems to me that it requires an additional argument that must be supported -- namely, that these things were only possible with the existence of NASA and could not have happened in some NASA-less alternate history.
If these things were possible outside of NASA, then I anticipate that the next argument offered would be that rate of improvement was multiplied greatly by the space program research, and modern technology would be set back by 10 or 25 or 50 years absent the space program.
If that's the argument, then I think we need a broader argument justifying the use of government funding for any tech/science research. If the practical improvements in everyday life are the real goal, then why not use government funding applied directly, rather than paying for a space program that may have some practical application years later as the technology trickles down to consumer products, but certainly isn't an efficient plan to improve modern life?
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 12:51 PM
#28
I don't think anyone is saying that reducing the size of gadgets and technology overall could have NOT being achieved without NASA. HOWEVER, without the space program the NEED to do so would have not being pushing the envelope. There are greater things that just technology advances that derive from the space programs. The technological advances are just what we see first hand.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 01:29 PM
#29
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Much of the technology that originated with the space program was a means to an end, not the end itself. To give a more modern example, in which the government and private sector work together, NASA needed an advancement in their technology to study solar flares.
An engineer at a private company worked out how to create the equipment needed, founded his own company to produce the equipment and partnered with NASA through their small business integration program.
That engineer (and now company owner) then applied some of that same technology to advance medical imaging equipment (like CT scans).
The need to study solar flares was the catalyst for the creation of this technology, not a private sector desire to improve CT scan equipment. Would the technology have eventually been created without that catalyst? How the ---- should I know?
An engineer at a private company worked out how to create the equipment needed, founded his own company to produce the equipment and partnered with NASA through their small business integration program.
That engineer (and now company owner) then applied some of that same technology to advance medical imaging equipment (like CT scans).
The need to study solar flares was the catalyst for the creation of this technology, not a private sector desire to improve CT scan equipment. Would the technology have eventually been created without that catalyst? How the ---- should I know?
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 01:41 PM
#30
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,642
Total Cats: 42
Wait a second...we need to be clear here.
Is the claim that miniaturization and efficiency gains were unique to the space program? Because I'm fairly confident that engineers have been trying to make things smaller and use less energy for centuries before NASA was created.
Or is the claim simply that the actual hardware in modern cell phones (to use your example) has direct (whether concrete or conceptual) links to NASA-created/funded technologies? If that's the argument, then it seems to me that it requires an additional argument that must be supported -- namely, that these things were only possible with the existence of NASA and could not have happened in some NASA-less alternate history.
If these things were possible outside of NASA, then I anticipate that the next argument offered would be that rate of improvement was multiplied greatly by the space program research, and modern technology would be set back by 10 or 25 or 50 years absent the space program.
If that's the argument, then I think we need a broader argument justifying the use of government funding for any tech/science research. If the practical improvements in everyday life are the real goal, then why not use government funding applied directly, rather than paying for a space program that may have some practical application years later as the technology trickles down to consumer products, but certainly isn't an efficient plan to improve modern life?
Is the claim that miniaturization and efficiency gains were unique to the space program? Because I'm fairly confident that engineers have been trying to make things smaller and use less energy for centuries before NASA was created.
Or is the claim simply that the actual hardware in modern cell phones (to use your example) has direct (whether concrete or conceptual) links to NASA-created/funded technologies? If that's the argument, then it seems to me that it requires an additional argument that must be supported -- namely, that these things were only possible with the existence of NASA and could not have happened in some NASA-less alternate history.
If these things were possible outside of NASA, then I anticipate that the next argument offered would be that rate of improvement was multiplied greatly by the space program research, and modern technology would be set back by 10 or 25 or 50 years absent the space program.
If that's the argument, then I think we need a broader argument justifying the use of government funding for any tech/science research. If the practical improvements in everyday life are the real goal, then why not use government funding applied directly, rather than paying for a space program that may have some practical application years later as the technology trickles down to consumer products, but certainly isn't an efficient plan to improve modern life?
I seriously doubt the end goal of GPS was that civilised society gets to have satellite navigation on their phone, but without the satalites being put into orbit for a completely different reason we may not have ended up with that technology available to us
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 04:26 PM
#34
You can make the argument that pushing the boundaries of engineering involved in space exploration - an exercise with limited visibility in terms of tangible return on investment - has led to some great innovations that "trickle down" to the civillian and military population. Think about your smart phone.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 05:36 PM
#37
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Nasa publishes a list (every year) that highlights technological advances made by the space programs that benefit everyone. If nothing else, it's a very cool bit of reading.
Link here: About Spinoff
Latest spinoff article: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/pdf/Spinoff2011.pdf
Link here: About Spinoff
Latest spinoff article: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/pdf/Spinoff2011.pdf
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 07:47 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
I don't understand why that picture is fail, but anyway...
The point of Curiosity is to explore Mars and gather information for potential manned missions and colonies. Eventually Earth is going to cross paths with a comet or we will ruin it and it would be nice if there were somewhere we could go to avoid certain death. Once we know what the end of the earth looks like, it would be too late to start exploring options.
Feel free to volunteer yourself to stay on Earth if that day comes sooner than expected.
That's just the one benefit I could think of off the top of my head. History of life, the solar system, and the universe is other good stuff to explore.
I'm glad some people weren't as stubborn and cheap as you when explorers asked for money to sail west a few hundred years ago.
The point of Curiosity is to explore Mars and gather information for potential manned missions and colonies. Eventually Earth is going to cross paths with a comet or we will ruin it and it would be nice if there were somewhere we could go to avoid certain death. Once we know what the end of the earth looks like, it would be too late to start exploring options.
Feel free to volunteer yourself to stay on Earth if that day comes sooner than expected.
That's just the one benefit I could think of off the top of my head. History of life, the solar system, and the universe is other good stuff to explore.
I'm glad some people weren't as stubborn and cheap as you when explorers asked for money to sail west a few hundred years ago.
All that damn money and they couldn't use a damn color camera?!
They were looking for a route to the west indies when Columbus sailed west. The educated population also already knew the earth was (somewhat) spherical. Their cost to send a ship and some disposable people was pretty low, with a huge possible pay off. Low initial cost, possibly huge reward (if they didn't die in the process). NASA costs billions, with little or no practical knowledge that couldn't have been created by an earth-bound engineer at a desk.
And if you think your Great^10 grandchildren will still be alive when moving billions of people into orbit, not even space, just orbit, is cost affective, you need a reality check. How about this, we increase NASAs budget, and I volunteer for the mission to attempt to reach 99.9% the speed of light. Since time is relative to the observer (you), time in my spaceship will slow, and I can come back in 50years (my time) and prove your descendants wrong.
Yeah, I had a Hubble telescope background on my laptop. It's cool, but not practical.
Reply
-3
-3
