blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Uh...

NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society

I'll never understand how people can type this, it's like saying "ERHMEGERWD! ARPANET WAS WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!" while typing on a website.

2ndGearRubber

You don't think someone else could have figured that out? It's only possible to create a dome roof by going to space?


Yes, nasa figured stuff out. I'm saying if you gave a team of engineers less money they could do the same, from the safety of a desk.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, about GPS. Satellites. Weather analysis....

Come on dude. If you can't list at least a half dozen things off the top of your head that meets your criteria, I would use a low blow and (perhaps unfairly) impugn your intelligence.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

You certainly don't understand a thing about how engineering works if you think that.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

But Tang!

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Butt tang? That's just wrong.

2ndGearRubber

Putting up a satellite is a lot different than a space station, or going to the moon. You know that. Most weather analysis is done by radar. That's why is still sucks.

You have a problem, you have a chemical engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a few chemists, you can do whatever you want.

Everything ever, not-made by NASA, was created through this process, or simpler ones.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Holy...-------...----....



So, your argument is all NASA has done is put people in space?

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

You're not reading very carefully, are you?

He's admitted that NASA has "invented" or advanced all kinds of technologies. The question is whether only NASA could have done it, and at what cost.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Two problems with trying that tact, Mg. In his very rebuttal, his claims come down solely to manned spaceflight - so, yes, he went there and used them as primary examples. In fact, let me quote the post you obviously did not read...

Now, while you'll desperately try to spin it into "But he could mean other things!", you would fail on one single point. He's been given an opportunity to elaborate on his claims many times, and so far has failed to elaborate on more than a single one. When his argument comes to "But NASA only created manned space flight that no one else could have developed with (insert conditions here)", well, he's making a broad and generalized claim. In order to refute such a claim, it only requires one counter-example. However, if 2ndGearRubber is claiming more broad discoveries, let me know - however, his claims so far after repeated reading of his posts have been exclusively that NASA was only able to create manned space flight, with the rest of the benefits from NASA that other people would have been able to create in safer conditions, and for less money.

Secondly, I'll take him a lot more seriously when he manages to make a cogent counter-argument about GPS alone. In fact, let me quote what he claims GPS is...

which demonstrates a substantial and basic scientific misunderstanding both as to what GPS is and in fact about space flight in general.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Your whole post is irrelevant. Scroll up, he already said this:

His argument is not that NASA didn't get there first. They rightfully invented all kinds of technologies. As I stated before, the question is whether only NASA could have done it, and at what cost.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Uh huh.

I knew you were going to say that, and then proceed to not read my post - after trying to whine about me not reading his posts.

2ndGearRubber

Germany "could" have launched satellites into orbit during WWII. It's not particularly hard to chuck something into space. Put it on an ICBM, hit "launch". Putting up satellites for triangulation (the basic function of GPS) is a LOT different (and cheaper) than building a floating apartment for 10 people.



Things like, circuit boards, the wheel, penicillin, carbon fiber, and rocket technology (which is what NASA and it's predecessor needed to even begin THINKING about space), were all made on earth.

Actually, everything NASA builds and discovers is on earth. If they simply pretend to need to go to space, and accomplish a specific task there, they could do the engineering here on earth (like they already do), and save the money they spend on their "proof of concept" experiments, ie: space travel.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Make a cogent argument. You started this by saying that he was claiming that all NASA has done was put people in space, which is clearly not what he said, as was just demonstrated.

Let's turn it around:

Are you claiming it's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible? Or astronaut ice cream? Or Tang?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Again, you have a substantial and fundamental lack of understanding of the science involved.

None of the people you have quoted could have enabled geosynchronous or geostationary orbit (Or, for that matter, similar orbits of which there are a large amount) without an analogue of NASA - something that is required of satellites, FYI.

Much of our current technology involved in satellites, or even past technology involved with them would have not been able to have been created without the knowledge gleaned from NASA.

Or are you telling me that we would have been able to launch multi-billion dollar satellites into space, into geostationary orbit, at a relatively economical cost...on our first try? Second try? Just trying to say that implies a substantial lack of knowledge about engineering, and even science as a whole. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to be involved in testing those theories. The argument that we'd have them without NASA or a NASA-analogue is crazy, and requires a substantial misunderstanding of how this process works.

And now you just went full retard, Mg. You aren't even bothering to read what I actually typed, as opposed to what you want to read. You should know better than most on here that the inverse of a statement is not always true.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Please tell me you see the irony of you claiming that another govt. Could have done the same thing with ...... Tax money. I mean really?

2ndGearRubber

Geosynchronous orbit was proved as a concept, on earth. The germans also understood it. They used the earths rotation to allow for shorter distances to be traveled by their rockets. They shot it in an extremely narrow parabolic trajectory, and let the earth's rotation do the work for them. Don't act like only someone employed by nasa could do the basic physics involved.



Knowing how to make something orbit, can be calculated by a physics student. All of the math can, and was, worked out on earth. If the variables are known, and can be accurately measured (which they were, and can currently be) there is no reason why it wouldn't work the first try. Mechanical failure and improperly built components are why things fail, not because the math was wrong. Automobile engines were crude at the beginning. No because we hadn't made enough, but because we didn't know enough about metallurgy and the physics involved. They work better now, not because we've had enough tries, but because the engineering is right. Trial and error works, but with proper engineering, you don't need it. We can now build an engine, or component, and have it be nearly perfect, first try. That is, if the engineering is right. Notice we made it into space, and back, first try.







I doubt they used tax money, as by the time of germany's rocket development (used to pound the ---- out of England) they had already pilfered the valuables from a good chunk of Europe. And being (essentially) a dictatorship, they would not need to "pay" for materials. My point was that going to the moon didn't invent anything. It's that people on earth, trying to accomplish a goal, invented things. Tell NASA they're going to land on mercury, and let the super high temperature engineering begin. File patents on the discoveries, don't chuck something into space, profit.

Isn't Virgin mobile trying to go into (low) space, commercially? A private company.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

I had started typing up a reply when you still had contrapositive in the final sentence instead of inverse. Love your ninja edits (and apparent confusion over Aristotelian logic).

Let's try it anyway. The original claim (made by 2ndGearRubber):

(Excluding men-in-space,) NASA's accomplishments could have possibly been done by someone else.

Proposition:

IF something is a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could have been done by someone else.

Inversion:

IF something is NOT a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.

This makes no sense -- nobody was claiming this. My question to you was certainly not any form of the inverse. What I asked you was to affirm or deny the negation. The negation, of course, is always untrue if the proposition is true, and always true if the proposition is untrue.

Negation:

IF something is a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.

As I said before:

Parsed to fit the form of the negation:

IF GPS technology was made possible by NASA, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.

Affirm or deny, please.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

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, by definition, we have to go into space for GPS. Unless you care to refine your argument that we have to make the discovery explicitly in space by manned space travel at this juncture? Which is substantially different from the original argument about things that we would not have had if it was not for NASA?
(/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.

Don't bother, Mg. You've demonstrated exactly why I stopped bothering to respond to you in the past, and I've given you multiple chances (as well as called you out on them) to stop twisting and manipulating what I was saying into something it wasn't in this thread alone. It's not worth trying to argue with someone who, even after being corrected multiple times, still refuses to stop twisting and manipulating arguments. Seriously, I'm completely disappointed - someone swore to me you've improved since then, you haven't.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Uh huh.

Have you decided yet whether you meant the inverse or the contrapositive?

Because it was neither. It was the negation, as I demonstrated above.