Is a space program important?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Quite, I'd agree with you there, I hadn't thought of that. However, I would counter that astronauts are the heroes of yesteryear. Everyone knows the name Gagarin or Aldrin or Armstrong, but I doubt you could get the average person to name a current astronaut out on mission. I know I can't without google or wikipedia.

-TG

Yeah, but only because there has been nothing grand happening. Put a man on Mars, betcha we'd all know his name.

Also, like I said on the first page, getting people interested in science is one emotional result, others might include a greater willingness to fund space exploration rather than the latest pressing earthly matter, and maybe a quickening of the shift in perception regarding earth, humanity etc.

Edit: Also, I'm in no way against robotics. The vast majority of space missions should be robotic imo, but I think there's a need for a couple of human ones as well.

[Woodruff]

And, like I said, an advance in robotics would benefit pretty much every industry and economy. Who really cares that we have guys who can ride in a rocket? Their use is limited to one or two fields (they could go on to pilot other aircraft??), whereas the effects of advancing robotics is widespread.

While what you say is true, I think you're overlooking the emotional impact of astronauts. Many of the people who went into one of the space fields (be they engineering, computers (at the time), etc...) did so because of astronauts more than anything else. I think you're looking too specifically at them.

Quite, I'd agree with you there, I hadn't thought of that. However, I would counter that astronauts are the heroes of yesteryear. Everyone knows the name Gagarin or Aldrin or Armstrong, but I doubt you could get the average person to name a current astronaut out on mission. I know I can't without google or wikipedia.

That is true...I couldn't either off the top of my head, and I teach the stuff. But my argument would be that's because we're not using our astronauts as explorers any longer, and haven't since the moon missions. Our astronauts have become scientists...and scientists don't make good heroes for kids. Get our astronauts back to being explorers, and I think that changes drastically.

[jonesthecurl]

Take a loook at this cool space tech

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/stratolaunch-plane-people-earth-orbit-203001086.html

[PLAYER57832]

That is true...I couldn't either off the top of my head, and I teach the stuff. But my argument would be that's because we're not using our astronauts as explorers any longer, and haven't since the moon missions. Our astronauts have become scientists...and scientists don't make good heroes for kids. Get our astronauts back to being explorers, and I think that changes drastically.

I guess the idea of celebrating or even just respecting scientists again is too far out?

Heroes are created.

[Woodruff]

Also, I'm in no way against robotics. The vast majority of space missions should be robotic imo, but I think there's a need for a couple of human ones as well.

Yes, I agree completely with this. Don't mistake my support for manned missions to mean that I think that's all we need. As Haggis said, I would consider the vast majority to be robotic, but the planning and implementation of the manned ones is just as important, if fewer.

[Woodruff]

That is true...I couldn't either off the top of my head, and I teach the stuff. But my argument would be that's because we're not using our astronauts as explorers any longer, and haven't since the moon missions. Our astronauts have become scientists...and scientists don't make good heroes for kids. Get our astronauts back to being explorers, and I think that changes drastically.

I guess the idea of celebrating or even just respecting scientists again is too far out?

For a scientist to be considered a hero by kids? Yes, it is.

I'm not talking about celebrating or respecting scientists....geez.

Heroes are created.

And? Do you believe it's easier to create an astronaut as a hero or a molecular biologist?

[safariguy5]

That is true...I couldn't either off the top of my head, and I teach the stuff. But my argument would be that's because we're not using our astronauts as explorers any longer, and haven't since the moon missions. Our astronauts have become scientists...and scientists don't make good heroes for kids. Get our astronauts back to being explorers, and I think that changes drastically.

I guess the idea of celebrating or even just respecting scientists again is too far out?

For a scientist to be considered a hero by kids? Yes, it is.

I'm not talking about celebrating or respecting scientists....geez.

Heroes are created.

And? Do you believe it's easier to create an astronaut as a hero or a molecular biologist?

But really, when you're talking about fame, it's really the first who go up who are really remembered. Besides the first Apollo mission and possibly Apollo 13, I don't remember the names of any of the other astronauts. I mean, not to be insensitive, but I don't even remember the names of the Challenger or Columbia crew.

Likewise, only the select few scientists are really famous. Everyone knows Einstein and even Stephen Hawkings, but who remembers the names of the Nobel Prize winners?

[Haggis_McMutton]

That is true...I couldn't either off the top of my head, and I teach the stuff. But my argument would be that's because we're not using our astronauts as explorers any longer, and haven't since the moon missions. Our astronauts have become scientists...and scientists don't make good heroes for kids. Get our astronauts back to being explorers, and I think that changes drastically.

I guess the idea of celebrating or even just respecting scientists again is too far out?

For a scientist to be considered a hero by kids? Yes, it is.

I'm not talking about celebrating or respecting scientists....geez.

Heroes are created.

And? Do you believe it's easier to create an astronaut as a hero or a molecular biologist?

But really, when you're talking about fame, it's really the first who go up who are really remembered. Besides the first Apollo mission and possibly Apollo 13, I don't remember the names of any of the other astronauts. I mean, not to be insensitive, but I don't even remember the names of the Challenger or Columbia crew.

Likewise, only the select few scientists are really famous. Everyone knows Einstein and even Stephen Hawkings, but who remembers the names of the Nobel Prize winners?

I don't know why as of late more and more posts seem to make me think of a related comic, but here we are...

[BigBallinStalin]

Private industry wouldn't make the james webb lazer pwner, right? Cuz there's no money in it for them. Unless you could make them for governments to buy, which seems like a lot of effort for not a lot of profit. I don't get how government action interferes with private enterprize making a chain of space hotels and making lira off of flights into space and shit.

If you control the R&D, you decide to what ends the capital is directed.

If you establish legal barriers to trade, you can restrict competition, thus limiting innovation.

Which company could afford to spend the amount of money on R & D that the US Government did with a space program? With no guarantee of success or a profit it seems that government action was essential for space flight.

Sure, we got a man on the moon faster than it would've taken otherwise, but who knows when that would've occurred.

The space program (of getting a man on the moon) was a giant nationalist pissing contest. That hardly seems justified--unless you wish to strengthen people's faith in the state.

Regarding profits, satellites seem profitable. Would telecomm. companies pass up such an opportunity?

Basically, this thread goes like this:

A: I think this is cool; everyone else should pay for it.

B: How is that justified?

A: It's just cool. I don't really care how it's paid for--as long as I don't have to contribute heavily to it.

Increasing the scope of human knowledge seems to me to be just about the only worthwhile endeavor there is. If we're not actively trying to learn new stuff, then honestly, why are we here? Our understanding of the universe and our quality of life has historically grown and improved because of the actions of a few men(and women) trying to drag us forward while the majority of people stick their feet in the mud, don't contribute to the forward momentum all the while expecting to be carried to a better place. This way, everyone is contributing. That's how I justify it.

We are "actively trying to learning stuff" within both the public and private sector... The expansion of human knowledge occurs from both areas... You just favor taxation to promote a certain kind of knowledge because you presume it's money spent on loftier goals.

My general position is to let people produce what they actually demand in whatever amount that may bring.

[BigBallinStalin]

Private industry wouldn't make the james webb lazer pwner, right? Cuz there's no money in it for them. Unless you could make them for governments to buy, which seems like a lot of effort for not a lot of profit. I don't get how government action interferes with private enterprize making a chain of space hotels and making lira off of flights into space and shit.

If you control the R&D, you decide to what ends the capital is directed.

If you establish legal barriers to trade, you can restrict competition, thus limiting innovation.

How does the simple existence of NASA establish legal barriers to trade?


I'm all for abolishing barriers limiting private companies from doing space stuff, just don't see how public space research is a barrier.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans/R&D/SHOTOCT99.html
Read Section 2. It highlights the decades of NASA's monopoly on inventions. Of course, NASA would stand to lose much if its publicly funded goods would be accessible to competitors, so from NASA's point of view, a monopoly is best.


I'm all for abolishing such barriers, but that didn't happen with NASA.

Basically, this thread goes like this:

A: I think this is cool; everyone else should pay for it.

B: How is that justified?

A: It's just cool. I don't really care how it's paid for--as long as I don't have to contribute heavily to it.

It is cool, but there are more fundamental reasons to sponsor scientific research. You can't tell me you seriously see no justification for conducting fuckin' SCIENCE BITCHES.

Conducting science? Sounds great, and I'm all for it--except when it's done through taxation, tax credits, subsidies, etc. (generally). Man on the Moon missions? Not justified. Lovely pictures of space? Sure, but only if you put your money where your mouth is.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quite, I'd agree with you there, I hadn't thought of that. However, I would counter that astronauts are the heroes of yesteryear. Everyone knows the name Gagarin or Aldrin or Armstrong, but I doubt you could get the average person to name a current astronaut out on mission. I know I can't without google or wikipedia.

-TG

Yeah, but only because there has been nothing grand happening. Put a man on Mars, betcha we'd all know his name.

Also, like I said on the first page, getting people interested in science is one emotional result, others might include a greater willingness to fund space exploration rather than the latest pressing earthly matter, and maybe a quickening of the shift in perception regarding earth, humanity etc.

Edit: Also, I'm in no way against robotics. The vast majority of space missions should be robotic imo, but I think there's a need for a couple of human ones as well.

I agree with this goal (the underlined), but that's an issue which could be resolved through more investment in marketing.

[Aradhus]

Private industry wouldn't make the james webb lazer pwner, right? Cuz there's no money in it for them. Unless you could make them for governments to buy, which seems like a lot of effort for not a lot of profit. I don't get how government action interferes with private enterprize making a chain of space hotels and making lira off of flights into space and shit.

If you control the R&D, you decide to what ends the capital is directed.

If you establish legal barriers to trade, you can restrict competition, thus limiting innovation.

Which company could afford to spend the amount of money on R & D that the US Government did with a space program? With no guarantee of success or a profit it seems that government action was essential for space flight.

Sure, we got a man on the moon faster than it would've taken otherwise, but who knows when that would've occurred.

The space program (of getting a man on the moon) was a giant nationalist pissing contest. That hardly seems justified--unless you wish to strengthen people's faith in the state.

Regarding profits, satellites seem profitable. Would telecomm. companies pass up such an opportunity?

Basically, this thread goes like this:

A: I think this is cool; everyone else should pay for it.

B: How is that justified?

A: It's just cool. I don't really care how it's paid for--as long as I don't have to contribute heavily to it.

Increasing the scope of human knowledge seems to me to be just about the only worthwhile endeavor there is. If we're not actively trying to learn new stuff, then honestly, why are we here? Our understanding of the universe and our quality of life has historically grown and improved because of the actions of a few men(and women) trying to drag us forward while the majority of people stick their feet in the mud, don't contribute to the forward momentum all the while expecting to be carried to a better place. This way, everyone is contributing. That's how I justify it.

We are "actively trying to learning stuff" within both the public and private sector... The expansion of human knowledge occurs from both areas... You just favor taxation to promote a certain kind of knowledge because you presume it's money spent on loftier goals.

My general position is to let people produce what they actually demand in whatever amount that may bring.

I presume it's money that wouldn't be spent otherwise because there's no financial incentive for the private sector to do so.

[BigBallinStalin]

No one wants to "actively learn stuff" or do research unless the money was earned from taxes?

[BigBallinStalin]

Answer to OP: YOu're damn right it is. See above. Case closed.

[Aradhus]

No one wants to "actively learn stuff" or do research unless the money was earned from taxes?

Is that what I said? Some things require money to be able to learn new stuff and do research, like the buying of materials, the construction of specific equipments that are necessary for learning new stuff, but not useful outside of that narrow field. The funding of programs where there is no profit motive or adequate funding from elsewhere so state funding is the only viable option.

[BigBallinStalin]

No one wants to "actively learn stuff" or do research unless the money was earned from taxes?

Is that what I said? Some things require money to be able to learn new stuff and do research, like the buying of materials, the construction of specific equipments that are necessary for learning new stuff, but not useful outside of that narrow field. The funding of programs where there is no profit motive or adequate funding from elsewhere so state funding is the only viable option.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense.

How do know that there's no profit motive in developing space technology, i.e. a space program?

If there's a profit motive and some development, then how can we tell that the funding is adequate or inadequate?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

They tried launching the first commercial spacecraft about an hour ago... apparently an error was detected and they canceled at launch. =( They're going to try again on the 22nd.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this. It kinda directly relates to everything this thread was talking about. They successfully launched the Falcon 9 rocket, which will resupply the ISS. And this from the private sector.



-TG

[AndyDufresne]

Mmhm, it has been exciting to watch the Private Sector get into this, but sad to see NASA's budget, which American's devote something like half a penny of their yearly taxes to, always face cuts.


--Andy

[AAFitz]

No, I think we should devote 90% of our resources to making sure the 1% have enough....otherwise, the economy will fail.

[AAFitz]

Mmhm, it has been exciting to watch the Private Sector get into this, but sad to see NASA's budget, which American's devote something like half a penny of their yearly taxes to, always face cuts.


--Andy

More was spent on AC in Iraq and Afganistan.

[Symmetry]

The space program is part of America's triumph. It not only united Americans, it made people love America. It was a point that America could do something amazing. It's part of the American dream. Symbolic, sure, but amazing.