Unmanned SUV ridiculous NASA relevance debate thread
08-08-2012, 10:23 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
So, you are saying that, if I understand you right...that the Germans could have created a NASA-analogue to launch satellites.
See, that's the fun part of all this for me. You forget to address half of my statements, and yet, they are critical to the argument. If a NASA-analogue applies, then it invalidates your original-and-current claims. Let me elaborate on this. If not for NASA, how would the satellites get into space? Why, a NASA-analogue that could launch them into space? GPS came about directly due to NASA. GPS could have came about from a NASA-analogue, you are correct about that - but the moment you argue about a NASA-analogue, your argument falls apart. Sure, the Air Force could have developed a rocket, and all the associated stuff that NASA did...but that would still be a NASA-analogue. The moment you try to argue, basically, anything in space by a governmentally-run agency, your argument falls apart completely. Why? Well, let's rename NASA the...CHAIR FORCE, and have the CHAIR FORCE do everything NASA did but go to the moon. Are they still NASA? Basically, yeah. You are just renaming them and trying to pretend that it makes a substantial difference so your argument doesn't completely fall apart.
(Edit)
As a reminder. Unless you care to refine your argument that we have to make the discovery explicitly in space by manned space travel at this juncture?
(/Edit)
Sure, it's easy to get into space. It's incredibly easy. Except it's not dude. I've been intentionally overlooking your statements to hit you in this post with it. This is the part that makes me lololol at this entire argument. Getting a satellite into space is hard. Getting a satellite into a narrow orbit, in a very narrow and small area is far harder.
Now, I'm not talking about the new fad nanosatellites, or a Sputnik-esque orbit. That's not that hard with modern knowledge - difficult, yes, but not impossible for a dedicated hobbyist by any means. Getting them into a specific area, in a specific orbit, within a specific time is very, very hard. You aren't doing this without previous experience, and it doesn't matter what the math said - we still have problems to this day doing it, even if the math says it is perfect. Getting a GPS system (Which, notably, does not use a geosynchronous orbit, but rather a much more difficult one) right on your first try, with no prior experience, and without a great deal of prior knowledge? Yeah, and I can paint the Mona Lisa without any background in painting too.
What I don't get is that you somehow, seriously, think that we could make perfect launches into geosynchronous orbit without any previous experience. Because, apparently, it's just math. Apparently, it's just engineering. Even to this day, there are serious issues with space flight. We've been doing this over 50 years, and we still have serious issues in doing it. To try to argue what you are about GPS or even many of our modern satellites is just....wow.
Seriously, as rleete said, you ultimately really don't understand what you are talking about. You very clearly do not understand how engineering works and have made that pretty clear, and I seriously question both your scientific and mathematical understanding. At this point, I'm halfway expecting you to launch into a tirade about how the moon landing was a hoax.
See, that's the fun part of all this for me. You forget to address half of my statements, and yet, they are critical to the argument. If a NASA-analogue applies, then it invalidates your original-and-current claims. Let me elaborate on this. If not for NASA, how would the satellites get into space? Why, a NASA-analogue that could launch them into space? GPS came about directly due to NASA. GPS could have came about from a NASA-analogue, you are correct about that - but the moment you argue about a NASA-analogue, your argument falls apart. Sure, the Air Force could have developed a rocket, and all the associated stuff that NASA did...but that would still be a NASA-analogue. The moment you try to argue, basically, anything in space by a governmentally-run agency, your argument falls apart completely. Why? Well, let's rename NASA the...CHAIR FORCE, and have the CHAIR FORCE do everything NASA did but go to the moon. Are they still NASA? Basically, yeah. You are just renaming them and trying to pretend that it makes a substantial difference so your argument doesn't completely fall apart.
(Edit)
As a reminder. Unless you care to refine your argument that we have to make the discovery explicitly in space by manned space travel at this juncture?
(/Edit)
Sure, it's easy to get into space. It's incredibly easy. Except it's not dude. I've been intentionally overlooking your statements to hit you in this post with it. This is the part that makes me lololol at this entire argument. Getting a satellite into space is hard. Getting a satellite into a narrow orbit, in a very narrow and small area is far harder.
Now, I'm not talking about the new fad nanosatellites, or a Sputnik-esque orbit. That's not that hard with modern knowledge - difficult, yes, but not impossible for a dedicated hobbyist by any means. Getting them into a specific area, in a specific orbit, within a specific time is very, very hard. You aren't doing this without previous experience, and it doesn't matter what the math said - we still have problems to this day doing it, even if the math says it is perfect. Getting a GPS system (Which, notably, does not use a geosynchronous orbit, but rather a much more difficult one) right on your first try, with no prior experience, and without a great deal of prior knowledge? Yeah, and I can paint the Mona Lisa without any background in painting too.
What I don't get is that you somehow, seriously, think that we could make perfect launches into geosynchronous orbit without any previous experience. Because, apparently, it's just math. Apparently, it's just engineering. Even to this day, there are serious issues with space flight. We've been doing this over 50 years, and we still have serious issues in doing it. To try to argue what you are about GPS or even many of our modern satellites is just....wow.
Seriously, as rleete said, you ultimately really don't understand what you are talking about. You very clearly do not understand how engineering works and have made that pretty clear, and I seriously question both your scientific and mathematical understanding. At this point, I'm halfway expecting you to launch into a tirade about how the moon landing was a hoax.
I made these arguments eariler. Going to Mars is pointless. I never said satellites are pointless. I guess as a aerospace engineer you must be correct. Last time I checked, our record for satellites crashing is low compared to the success rate. That's on ground engineering. I don't care about how hard it is. Apparently it can be done successfully.
Yeah, we'll put all the life on a planet with no atmosphere. And it costs $4,729 per pound to chuck something into orbit. Good luck saving the redwoods. I hear solar wind is great for chloroform. 
We went to the moon for 1 reason. Just one. Sputnik 1. Had the Russians not launched that gloried radio, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
I will agree that NASA has a small(er) budget than many other programs.
Explain to me what we gain from mars. Rocks? Red dirt? Frozen water?
This is where the argument usually ends, because the guys riding NASA's dick, can give me ZERO examples of how mars will benefit us. The Moon is the same basic thing, and it's closer. Sure, we know more about it, the 1% of the population that will know basic scientific principles.
We went to the moon for 1 reason. Just one. Sputnik 1. Had the Russians not launched that gloried radio, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
I will agree that NASA has a small(er) budget than many other programs.
Explain to me what we gain from mars. Rocks? Red dirt? Frozen water?
This is where the argument usually ends, because the guys riding NASA's dick, can give me ZERO examples of how mars will benefit us. The Moon is the same basic thing, and it's closer. Sure, we know more about it, the 1% of the population that will know basic scientific principles.
The part of NASA that annoys me is landing things on other planets, space-stations, that type of junk. I know you want to turn the argument into "butt satellites are important and NASA did that". Yeah they did. Anyone could of, and after finding away to do something valuable (the per-coursers of GPS), we wasted time and money doing something pointless, landing on a barren rock called the moon. My beef with NASA is, why are we wasting money on mars landings. Everyone else has brought up "what if there was no NASA", and I've addressed individual concerns.
You can put an object into orbit. You don't need to build a space station or go to the moon to make a satellite. I've been making that point for the last 3 pages, but everyone keeps missing it. If you want to develop tech to work on mars, it has to be perfect on earth, or you've just wasted a lot of time. THAT is what I meant by, "chair-force". If you want the tech work done, do it on earth (like NASA already does) and don't spend 2.5 billion to test it on another planet. If it works for something on earth, cool, use it. If it doesn't work (or isn't needed) on this planet, forget it.
Answer this: WHAT do we gain from mars? What does the physical act of being on mars accomplish?
Reply
-1
-1
08-08-2012, 10:24 PM
#63
Please tell me WHAT we gain from mars. What does the physical act of being on mars accomplish?
In the 1960s, if you asked people what did we have to gain by going into space...how could they have envisioned GPS? Or our modern satellites? Or, ----, some of the space-age materials that NASA either developed, co-developed, or funded? Related, how could you have told people when ARPANET was first proposed or funded, what it would turn into?
Back then, even though the people in NASA knew the Soviet answer was a load of crap, as well as the more educated people in the US, well, the answer was always the Soviets. What does research on the Higgs-Boson gain us? What does research on (X) gain us?
That's the problem with research. It's incredibly hard to justify untill you've already done it.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 10:35 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
No, but you made an over-reaching argument without specifying restrictions. This is substantially different than what you first said - even if you meant something different. I don't really have a /huge/ disagreement with what you are saying now (Mars is a waste of time, NASA really has better things to spend money on. GFG Bush unfunded mandates.), and I'm noting the rest below.
See, this is what I hate about that logic.
In the 1960s, if you asked people what did we have to gain by going into space...how could they have envisioned GPS? Or our modern satellites? Or, ----, some of the space-age materials that NASA either developed, co-developed, or funded? Related, how could you have told people when ARPANET was first proposed or funded, what it would turn into?
Back then, even though the people in NASA knew the Soviet answer was a load of crap, as well as the more educated people in the US, well, the answer was always the Soviets. What does research on the Higgs-Boson gain us? What does research on (X) gain us?
That's the problem with research. It's incredibly hard to justify untill you've already done it.
See, this is what I hate about that logic.
In the 1960s, if you asked people what did we have to gain by going into space...how could they have envisioned GPS? Or our modern satellites? Or, ----, some of the space-age materials that NASA either developed, co-developed, or funded? Related, how could you have told people when ARPANET was first proposed or funded, what it would turn into?
Back then, even though the people in NASA knew the Soviet answer was a load of crap, as well as the more educated people in the US, well, the answer was always the Soviets. What does research on the Higgs-Boson gain us? What does research on (X) gain us?
That's the problem with research. It's incredibly hard to justify untill you've already done it.
So we should fund faeflora's miata because it could cure cancer? Or create flame proof cats to conquer the sun people?
Basically you're saying you can prove zero value is being generated by a mars landing. But hey, maybe something could come of it. 2+ billion justified! Riddle me this; We landed on the moon 50ish years ago. What specific advancements did we make by physically being on the moon?
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 10:38 PM
#65
So we should fund faeflora's miata because it could cure cancer? Or create flame proof cats to conquer the sun people?
Basically you're saying you can prove zero value is being generated by a mars landing. Riddle me this; We landed on the moon 50ish years ago. What specific advancements did we make by physically being on the moon?
Basically you're saying you can prove zero value is being generated by a mars landing. Riddle me this; We landed on the moon 50ish years ago. What specific advancements did we make by physically being on the moon?
This is what rleete was calling you out on before, man. Trying to argue that we got no benefit from X although we got a ton of benefit from Y, and Y could not have happened without X is.....well, I really, really hate to say it, but it's a stupid action to take.
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 10:49 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
And you are trying to muddle a large amount of advancements that we made by getting to the moon with being physically on the moon.
This is what rleete was calling you out on before, man. Trying to argue that we got no benefit from X although we got a ton of benefit from Y, and Y could not have happened without X is.....well, I really, really hate to say it, but it's a stupid action to take.
This is what rleete was calling you out on before, man. Trying to argue that we got no benefit from X although we got a ton of benefit from Y, and Y could not have happened without X is.....well, I really, really hate to say it, but it's a stupid action to take.
We launched satellites first, then we started wasting time on pointless things. If we already knew how to get into space, what do we gain from going to mars?
Reply
0
0
08-08-2012, 11:11 PM
#69
Okay, what do we benefit from building a capsule that can travel through conditions that do not exist anywhere on earth? What do we learn from knowing what is the composition of Mars' soil?
We launched satellites first, then we started wasting time on pointless things. If we already knew how to get into space, what do we gain from going to mars?
We launched satellites first, then we started wasting time on pointless things. If we already knew how to get into space, what do we gain from going to mars?
We learned a lot about materials science by putting men in space, as an example. I.e., one of the largest advancements in implantable human heart pumps was made directly due to the manned space program.
Ever since we started this argument, I've been researching on that, actually. Based on a lot of information I've gathered, the answer is no, we would not have had that without the space program. It would be theoretically possible to create it without NASA, yes. But considering numerous factors behind it, it is extraordinarily doubtful we would have been able to create it.
Therein lies the problem with your current argument in context with previous arguments however. There's no true and proper way to rebut the "Show me something we absolutely, provably, would not have had without the space program!" I can point to a lot of things that there is, say, a 99% chance we would not have had without it - but unless it's directly in space, there is nothing I can point to and say "There is no way this could have ever been created without the space program!"
There are a lot of examples of things we would not have had for, probably, decades without it, and a lot of examples of things we probably would not have had. However, it remains a theoretical possibility to have.
Thus, due to how you have now framed the argument, it's not possible to give a proper rebuttal while responding to your argument directly. I could make a financial argument (I.e., NASA has paid for itself), but that does not actually refute what you are trying to argue.
In fact, I would go so far as to say due to how you've phrased it, you've made an impossible-to-respond-to-premise. Not because of what you are trying to argue (The patents NASA has generated alone have more than paid for our expenditures on NASA historically), but rather because of how you've phrased it - specifically, that it requires an absolute certainty that a particular technology or device could not have been created without the NASA manned space program, while simultaneously ignoring the benefits that are created as a side-effect of the NASA manned space program.
The return on GPS alone is currently estimated to more than pay for the past decade of NASA's operations based on several reports - but we would have not had GPS without first sending a man to the moon. To try to split those two that are intrinsically tied together...sure, it's theoretically possible. But without so many contributing factors and technologies that were developed that were involved in sending a man to the moon, it's pretty safe to say we would not have GPS, or modern satellites, or many modern composites, or hell, a lot of our modern solar power technology. To try to split off one part of the space program that had substantial contributions to the space program as a whole is intellectually dishonest.
Or, I'm just going to let a staunch conservative answer for me...
Because there are times that even I, as a small government conservative, realize that government needs to be a player. The interstate highway system is one example. Space is another. Ronald Reagan, that bastion of socialist thinking, knew that when he directed NASA to build what ultimately became the ISS
First off, private companies answer to their stockholders for their profits and losses. How many companies do you think are out there that would be willing to spend ten years pumping a couple of billion a year into a project that might, ultimately, not pay for itself?
Government (NASA specifically) can do that--while a project may not end up being directly profitable, the spin-offs generate more economic activity than was spent on the original project. That's a wise use of money
_That's_ how you got your smartphone. Without NASA, the technology would never have been developed to the point that Blackberry and Apple could make it profitable. They couldn't have "easily been developed by the private market" because the start up costs would have been too high.
If you really mean what you say, then you need to stop using stuff that spun off from NASA--that means throwing away all your "gadgets". Find an old Zenith TV from about 1968, and once you round up all the tubes needed to get it running, watch that--no cable, no satellite, just the stations you can pull in with an antenna. You'll be getting a lot of exercise--unless you can find one with a working "Space Command" remote, you'll need to get up to change the channel.
Of course, you'll also have to stop using the computer
Even with the high degree of mismanagement and bureaucracy (and it is very high) at NASA, it's still a worthwhile investment.
Those things could have easily been developed by the private market, certainly. But they *wouldn't* have been. Why? Because nobody knew if they were viable at the time, so nobody risked developing it. Corporations do not generally take huge risks pouring tens of millions of dollars into fundamental research. That is not how one maximizes profit.
There is something to be said for governments doing things which are too risky or unprofitable to attract any interest from the private sector.
First off, private companies answer to their stockholders for their profits and losses. How many companies do you think are out there that would be willing to spend ten years pumping a couple of billion a year into a project that might, ultimately, not pay for itself?
Government (NASA specifically) can do that--while a project may not end up being directly profitable, the spin-offs generate more economic activity than was spent on the original project. That's a wise use of money
_That's_ how you got your smartphone. Without NASA, the technology would never have been developed to the point that Blackberry and Apple could make it profitable. They couldn't have "easily been developed by the private market" because the start up costs would have been too high.
If you really mean what you say, then you need to stop using stuff that spun off from NASA--that means throwing away all your "gadgets". Find an old Zenith TV from about 1968, and once you round up all the tubes needed to get it running, watch that--no cable, no satellite, just the stations you can pull in with an antenna. You'll be getting a lot of exercise--unless you can find one with a working "Space Command" remote, you'll need to get up to change the channel.
Of course, you'll also have to stop using the computer
Even with the high degree of mismanagement and bureaucracy (and it is very high) at NASA, it's still a worthwhile investment.
Those things could have easily been developed by the private market, certainly. But they *wouldn't* have been. Why? Because nobody knew if they were viable at the time, so nobody risked developing it. Corporations do not generally take huge risks pouring tens of millions of dollars into fundamental research. That is not how one maximizes profit.
There is something to be said for governments doing things which are too risky or unprofitable to attract any interest from the private sector.
Last edited by blaen99; 08-08-2012 at 11:29 PM.
Reply
1
1
08-09-2012, 04:34 AM
#72
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Exactly sir. I heard one of the NASA guys talking about the actual cost of this Mars mission. It works out to about the price of a movie ticket for each tax payer in the country. And that cost is very much overstated, since a lot of this mission was backed by foreign countries and domestic and foreign private companies. I'd gladly pay the cost of a movie ticket for this awesome show and advancement of the human frontier.Then you have the fact that NASA's entire yearly budget is a small fraction of a penny on the dollar. People complain about how we are "wasting money up there when we have problems down here" and have no ------- idea what they are talking about, and how much the space program contributed to our society today and the luxuries they enjoy on a daily basis. It ------- infuriates me the level of ignorance in this country and the self centered attitudes. "Well I can't see a major benefit tomorrow, so it's not worth the effort!" Imagine if some of the great explorers, philosophers and inventors of the last several centuries took that kind of asinine stance.
I hate you people (by you, I mean the collective of this country).
Also, I don't like making personal attacks on people here, but 2ndGearRubber, are you ------- retarded?
Reply
1
1
08-09-2012, 08:42 AM
#75
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. I was using my time-space distortionary transport vehicle to run through several parallel universes in order to answer the question, "would these things have been invented without NASA."
I can report that the answer is "sometimes."
Now, back to the Rover.
I can report that the answer is "sometimes."
Now, back to the Rover.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2012, 10:03 AM
#76
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 14,172
Total Cats: 1,128
I wonder if 2ndgayrubber is one of those peoples that points out all the physics defying "mistakes" in Star Wars.
Oh, and 2.5 billion and they couldn't slap a Go-Pro with color on the thing? I kid.
I'm all for DUMPING money into NASA. Flying cars and civilian piloted space travel cannot come fast enough. I want my Millennium Falcon.
Oh, and 2.5 billion and they couldn't slap a Go-Pro with color on the thing? I kid.
I'm all for DUMPING money into NASA. Flying cars and civilian piloted space travel cannot come fast enough. I want my Millennium Falcon.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2012, 10:14 AM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,163
Total Cats: 12
Then you have the fact that NASA's entire yearly budget is a small fraction of a penny on the dollar. People complain about how we are "wasting money up there when we have problems down here" and have no ------- idea what they are talking about, and how much the space program contributed to our society today and the luxuries they enjoy on a daily basis. It ------- infuriates me the level of ignorance in this country and the self centered attitudes. "Well I can't see a major benefit tomorrow, so it's not worth the effort!" Imagine if some of the great explorers, philosophers and inventors of the last several centuries took that kind of asinine stance.
I hate you people (by you, I mean the collective of this country).
Also, I don't like making personal attacks on people here, but 2ndGearRubber, are you ------- retarded?
I hate you people (by you, I mean the collective of this country).
Also, I don't like making personal attacks on people here, but 2ndGearRubber, are you ------- retarded?
I would rather build a power plant or distribute malaria vaccines than collect dirt from a lifeless rock. Oh, but that dirt could do something, for someone, at some time!
If we already know the outcome of an action, I would prefer to facilitate that action, as opposed to facilitating an action with no obvious benefits. Computers were made without nasa, as were the first plastics. And the pesticides that provide our huge harvests in the U.S. Yes, Nasa made GPS, allowed for satellite TV, etc. But they could have done so without putting someone on the moon. The mechanics of allowing communication over millions of miles of space has no value when you live on a planet 25,000miles around. I love how everyone jerks off for NASA's POSSIBLE future accomplishments, which all could be done without putting people in space. You want to test a new ceramic heat shield? Put it on a rocket, shoot it up, and fish it out of the pacific. No need to endanger human lives or spend more money than necessary. Yes, it's pretty cool, but is it practical?Oh, and guys, stop acting like NASA is going to take the human population into space in 25 years and you can ---- alien chicks. Getting people into space will never, I repeat never, be cost affective. When this planet dies, so will we ( if we don't kill each other first). Don't kid yourselves into thinking you'll have a X-wing fighter by next year cause we put Wall-e on mars.
Reply
0
0
08-09-2012, 10:29 AM
#78
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I love how everyone jerks off for NASA's POSSIBLE future accomplishments, which all could be done without putting people in space. You want to test a new ceramic heat shield? Put it on a rocket, shoot it up, and fish it out of the pacific. No need to endanger human lives or spend more money than necessary. Yes, it's pretty cool, but is it practical?
No one at NASA sat down and said, "Hey, how can I improve the quality and nature of CT scans for hospital paitents, potentially saving lives with this technology?"
The guy at NASA said, "Hey, how can I improve the quality and nature of our observations of solar flares?"
I can appreciate your basic fundamental question of whether there is a reasonable return on investment with government funded space exploration and innovation, but you are ignoring a lot of really valid answers to that question.
Reply
0
0
