Funkyterrance wrote:Wtf? The military is a completely different subject and doesn't affect the fact that NASA is a waste. The advances gained through NASA are paltry compared to the amount of money dumped into the program.
Are they? For $18 billion dollars per year, what exactly do you expect out of them?
Meaning advances that can be useful to purposes other than NASA, to clarify. If anyone argues cell phones I'm going to laugh, btw.
So you don't have a problem with funding NASA, you have a problem with funding space science.
Funkyterrance wrote:Wtf? The military is a completely different subject and doesn't affect the fact that NASA is a waste. The advances gained through NASA are paltry compared to the amount of money dumped into the program.
Are they? For $18 billion dollars per year, what exactly do you expect out of them?
Meaning advances that can be useful to purposes other than NASA, to clarify. If anyone argues cell phones I'm going to laugh, btw.
So you don't have a problem with funding NASA, you have a problem with funding space science.
Yeah, more or less. But I don't see why we have to fund the, for the most part, useless stuff along with the obviously beneficial.
NASA wrote: We will be at the forefront of exploration and science. We will develop and transfer to industry cutting-edge technologies in aeronautics and space to fulfill our national needs. We will establish a permanent human presence in space, expanding and sustaining human exploration, use, and development of space in our solar system and providing benefits in science, technology, and commerce that will contribute to a better life on the Earth for this and future generations. As we pursue our mission, we will enrich our Nation's society and economy. We will communicate widely the content, relevancy, and excitement of NASA's missions and discoveries to inspire and to increase understanding and the broad application of science and technology.
Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:23 pm
by 2dimes
Funkyterrance wrote: Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
Now you've upset my unicorn.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:57 pm
by Haggis_McMutton
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:24 am
by WILLIAMS5232
sending voyager was a do or die thing at the time i think. just had a small window to send it where it would pass all the planets. next possible time was like a hundred years or maybe a thousand.... anyway. a long time.
so it was more of a recon mission. at least we now have a pretty good idea there's not an alien race on neptune plannning an invasion on earth. probably saved us a bunch of money in the long run. ( plasma defense rockets, death ray gun force fields, tractor beams...etc. ) now we can just look at faint wobbles from distant stars and guess that there are planets that may carry life 800 million times farther away than where voyager is right now. maybe when we become extinct earth will create it's own super race that can put voyager to use as a satellite on a distant galaxy. the options are really endless if you consider anything is possible.
i will say though, i'm a bit freaked out that we sent so much information about us out with voyager. i would have never have pulled the trigger on that one.
it creeps me out just listening to this.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:03 am
by Funkyterrance
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Ok, aside from what your teacher told you in the 4th grade, do you have any real defense for space exploration besides you think it's "neat"? Your above statement is a prime example of an extremely sheltered point of view. I don't mean to be overly harsh but this is the exact mentality that causes crises in terms of resources. Do you think the droves of people out there pleasure driving their cars are enriching the world with their personal "endeavors"? No, they are masturbating, just like NASA does with it's rockets. We know that the earth is a speck in the grand scheme of things, we don't need billions of dollars spent to remind us.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:39 am
by TA1LGUNN3R
Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Ok, aside from what your teacher told you in the 4th grade, do you have any real defense for space exploration besides you think it's "neat"? Your above statement is a prime example of an extremely sheltered point of view. I don't mean to be overly harsh but this is the exact mentality that causes crises in terms of resources. Do you think the droves of people out there pleasure driving their cars are enriching the world with their personal "endeavors"? No, they are masturbating, just like NASA does with it's rockets. We know that the earth is a speck in the grand scheme of things, we don't need billions of dollars spent to remind us.
Not really much of the entrepreneurial or imaginative type, are ya?
-TG
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:52 am
by AAFitz
dyrtydog wrote:not if they were made of Twinkies
Wheres the damn like button?
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:30 pm
by x-raider
Words say stuff. So does a video:
I actually found this animator by stalking victor sullivan.
-x
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:42 pm
by thegreekdog
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Ok, aside from what your teacher told you in the 4th grade, do you have any real defense for space exploration besides you think it's "neat"? Your above statement is a prime example of an extremely sheltered point of view. I don't mean to be overly harsh but this is the exact mentality that causes crises in terms of resources. Do you think the droves of people out there pleasure driving their cars are enriching the world with their personal "endeavors"? No, they are masturbating, just like NASA does with it's rockets. We know that the earth is a speck in the grand scheme of things, we don't need billions of dollars spent to remind us.
Not really much of the entrepreneurial or imaginative type, are ya?
-TG
Caveat - I have no problem with NASA or my tax dollars going to scientific exploration.
Someone who wants to defund NASA does not necessarily lack in entrepreneurial traits or imagination. NASA is a goverment agency, which seems to be more of the problem than what it actually does. For example, I would prefer not to give money to welfare recipients. Does this mean that I'm not charitable? Of course not. It means I don't want the government to do it.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:23 pm
by TA1LGUNN3R
thegreekdog wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Ok, aside from what your teacher told you in the 4th grade, do you have any real defense for space exploration besides you think it's "neat"? Your above statement is a prime example of an extremely sheltered point of view. I don't mean to be overly harsh but this is the exact mentality that causes crises in terms of resources. Do you think the droves of people out there pleasure driving their cars are enriching the world with their personal "endeavors"? No, they are masturbating, just like NASA does with it's rockets. We know that the earth is a speck in the grand scheme of things, we don't need billions of dollars spent to remind us.
Not really much of the entrepreneurial or imaginative type, are ya?
-TG
Caveat - I have no problem with NASA or my tax dollars going to scientific exploration.
Someone who wants to defund NASA does not necessarily lack in entrepreneurial traits or imagination. NASA is a goverment agency, which seems to be more of the problem than what it actually does. For example, I would prefer not to give money to welfare recipients. Does this mean that I'm not charitable? Of course not. It means I don't want the government to do it.
He replied to Mets that he doesn't have a problem with funding to NASA, just the space exploration. I can only question why somebody would be opposed to defunding NASA's primary objective, which could very well prove to be the greatest advent of mankind through the acquisition of more resources and knowledge and consequently better standards of living, but approves of funding for immediate gains. Therefore, if the shoe fits and all that...
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to coercion in all its forms, including the tax schemes of the gov't. However, such as it is, to decry funding to NASA because of its perceived lessened benefits when NASA receives less than one percent of the budget while not saying anything about the much more wasteful avenues of the federal gov't (military, social security, etc.) is silly. The pursuit of knowledge almost always pays off. To use your example, welfare often doesn't.
-TG
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:29 pm
by thegreekdog
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Half of this shit is rainbows and daydreams. Cut out the bs and get real.
If by BS you mean anything that doesn't have an immediate practical utility, then the BS is probably more important than the practical applications.
The BS is one of the few things in today's world that reminds us of what's important. It's one of the few things most people are aware of that reminds us of the real relevance of all the current hot issues. Every time the space program gives us a glimpse of earth as the speck of dust it is, we are reminded, at least on some level, that 50 years from now all the pressing issues of the day will be completely meaningless, that no one will give a shit what Obama said last week or which party won majority in the last elections.
The BS not only reminds us of the insignificance of all the things we hold so dear, it also gives us a glimpse of humanity's potential, with every new insight about the universe it makes us wonder what we, humans, might be able to achieve if we could work just a tiny bit harder at putting our petty issues behind us.
Culture doesn't form in void. If we teach our kids to only think about the next 10 years, then that's the culture we will have and we'll probably end up killing each other before long. Science keeps marching ever ahead, culture has to follow it if we have any hope of avoiding anihilation/dystopia. Investment in stuff like NASA is one of the best ways I know of encouraging cultural growth.
Ok, aside from what your teacher told you in the 4th grade, do you have any real defense for space exploration besides you think it's "neat"? Your above statement is a prime example of an extremely sheltered point of view. I don't mean to be overly harsh but this is the exact mentality that causes crises in terms of resources. Do you think the droves of people out there pleasure driving their cars are enriching the world with their personal "endeavors"? No, they are masturbating, just like NASA does with it's rockets. We know that the earth is a speck in the grand scheme of things, we don't need billions of dollars spent to remind us.
Not really much of the entrepreneurial or imaginative type, are ya?
-TG
Caveat - I have no problem with NASA or my tax dollars going to scientific exploration.
Someone who wants to defund NASA does not necessarily lack in entrepreneurial traits or imagination. NASA is a goverment agency, which seems to be more of the problem than what it actually does. For example, I would prefer not to give money to welfare recipients. Does this mean that I'm not charitable? Of course not. It means I don't want the government to do it.
He replied to Mets that he doesn't have a problem with funding to NASA, just the space exploration. I can only question why somebody would be opposed to defunding NASA's primary objective, which could very well prove to be the greatest advent of mankind through the acquisition of more resources and knowledge and consequently better standards of living, but approves of funding for immediate gains. Therefore, if the shoe fits and all that...
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to coercion in all its forms, including the tax schemes of the gov't. However, such as it is, to decry funding to NASA because of its perceived lessened benefits when NASA receives less than one percent of the budget while not saying anything about the much more wasteful avenues of the federal gov't (military, social security, etc.) is silly. The pursuit of knowledge almost always pays off. To use your example, welfare often doesn't.
-TG
That's fair. I'm just not sure Terrance was being as, I don't know, against knowledge, as you were making him out to be.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:32 am
by tzor
Funkyterrance wrote:So essentially the satellite is the dead car to our galactic front yard.
Not exactly. The scale is wrong, a dead car takes up a visible percentage of the front yard. Think more of a lost, dead iPod shuffle in your front yard. You get close but you still don't get how vast space is and how small Voyager is.
It's modern art at its finest! (I realize that is not saying much!)
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:23 am
by Woodruff
Every time we get an update from Voyager 1, it's history in the making:
It's not worth bothering with Voyager. A few quick calculations on the blue book value. It's 36 years old, in no where near mint condition and with a whopping 18,650,000,000,000 km of mileage on it, the blue book value on Voyager comes to (negative) -$18,000,000,000.
how odd. I thought the scientists had all banded together in a god-hating conspiracy to keep us ignorant. Don't tell me they're admitting they don't know something.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:51 pm
by AndyDufresne
jonesthecurl wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Every time we get an update from Voyager 1, it's history in the making:
how odd. I thought the scientists had all banded together in a god-hating conspiracy to keep us ignorant. Don't tell me they're admitting they don't know something.
This is just a blip, Jonsey. Don't worry, the Secret Society of Scientists with Unknowable and Clandestine Knowledge (SSSUCK) will step in to correct things soon.
--Andy
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:45 pm
by Funkyterrance
Ok, if this thread gets a bump then I'm bumping Bedknobs and Broomsticks again.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:49 pm
by Woodruff
Funkyterrance wrote:Ok, if this thread gets a bump then I'm bumping Bedknobs and Broomsticks again.
You don't think the bump was relevant?
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:21 pm
by Funkyterrance
Yeah I suppose it is in a once-removed sort of way... I saw an ad for the Bedknobs and Broomsticks 40th anniversary special edition Blu-Ray too today though.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:00 pm
by tzor
patches70 wrote:It's not worth bothering with Voyager. A few quick calculations on the blue book value.
It's an almost unique item. You would be surprised what it would fetch at the antiques road show.
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:34 pm
by WILLIAMS5232
tzor wrote:
patches70 wrote:It's not worth bothering with Voyager. A few quick calculations on the blue book value.
It's an almost unique item. You would be surprised what it would fetch at the antiques road show.
the gold record alone could be worth hundreds if not thousands of dollars
Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:06 am
by john9blue
the awesome thing about satellites is that they keep going when they run out of gas
also i can't believe i missed out on saxi's bellsprout/BITBBH gifs
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:49 pm