6
   

Vice President Heads for Moon

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 12:19 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon wrote:
What about the benefit of mankind someday occupying multiple solar systems with more being added every year

It's a prospect I'm utterly indifferent about, and unwilling to spend money on. If you believe it's a Great Thing, put your money where your mouth is first. Go start a non-profit and fund your own vision.

Brandon9000 wrote:
meeting other intelligences

If they're so intelligent, they'll have figured out how to use radio waves for communication. Give them an A2K account and chat with them right here.

Brandon9000 wrote:
and learning amazing things we can't predict now?

Space travel is by no means the only way we can do that. For example, we have just begun to investigate the ground of our oceans right here on Earth. I'd rather do that first.

Brandon wrote:
You persist in acting as though the really long term benefits didn't exist.

I don't know that they do. Do you?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:15 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Brandon wrote:
What about the benefit of mankind someday occupying multiple solar systems with more being added every year

It's a prospect I'm utterly indifferent about, and unwilling to spend money on. If you believe it's a Great Thing, put your money where your mouth is first. Go start a non-profit and fund your own vision....

I think your lack of interest is really the key to your position. As for funding manned space exploration myself, no thanks. I think I'll try to persuade other taxpayers and public office holders to agree with me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 06:34 am
I begin to suspect, Brandon, that Thomas is just baiting you for the entertainment value. Certainly i don't think you're going to get any significant amount of funding for this in the near term, and that it will only be accomplished over very long periods of time. But to deny the value of the exercise, even if modestly funded over long periods of time is a little odd in someone who claims to have a background in science (was it physics you claimed you were educated in, Thomas?). Research of any kind has an intrinsic value which does not need to be further justified, except perhaps in those circumstances in which the "research" is a false front--such as SD doctors or Japanese whaling.

Going into space and doing the necessary research to someday do interstellar, manned flight will have enormous benefits to us, even if only pursued modestly. The electronic world we currently inhabit is very the much the product of the space program of the 60s and 70s.

Shame on you Thomas--you're just arguing for argument's sake.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:04 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I begin to suspect, Brandon, that Thomas is just baiting you for the entertainment value. Certainly i don't think you're going to get any significant amount of funding for this in the near term, and that it will only be accomplished over very long periods of time. But to deny the value of the exercise, even if modestly funded over long periods of time is a little odd in someone who claims to have a background in science (was it physics you claimed you were educated in, Thomas?). Research of any kind has an intrinsic value which does not need to be further justified, except perhaps in those circumstances in which the "research" is a false front--such as SD doctors or Japanese whaling.

Going into space and doing the necessary research to someday do interstellar, manned flight will have enormous benefits to us, even if only pursued modestly. The electronic world we currently inhabit is very the much the product of the space program of the 60s and 70s.

Shame on you Thomas--you're just arguing for argument's sake.

You're right. Basic research is necessary, and moving in slow, increments is all I really expected anyway. The question, though, is how slow. A program to take the next step, recreation of the means to go to the moon, with a specific schedule has been replaced by utopian talk about private industry taking over. The White House hasn't even given an aspirational schedule. I've been fighting this battle since the 70s, and this looks to me like abdication with a smokescreen of pretty talk. As I think you've said somewhere, politicians aren't exactly the best people to take the long view seriously.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 07:12 am
Of course they aren't--they're only focused on the next election. With the way the election process has been completely prostituted in the United States in our times, and with entertainment industry pukes all over it like stink on poop, members of the House of Representatives never do any real work. From the time they're sworn in for their current term, they're campaigning to get elected two years hence.

There's not much room for the long term view in such circumstances.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
That response strongly implies that you are very high or very anal retentive.

I'm opting for the latter and warning your loved ones about unattended boots.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The White House hasn't even given an aspirational schedule. I've been fighting this battle since the 70s, and this looks to me like abdication with a smokescreen of pretty talk. As I think you've said somewhere, politicians aren't exactly the best people to take the long view seriously.

a claim of political bungling that you might enjoy
Quote:
NASA's narrative problem
Here's an excellent summary from blogger Jeff Foust of the botched roll-out of NASA's new strategy (he and I were on a panel yesterday at the NASA Goddard symposium). Foust explains that NASA bosses didn't see the Constellation-killing White House/OMB budget request until just a few days before the Feb. 1 announcement. The budget shocked a lot of people because it spiked a major program outright -- stake through the heart -- and committed NASA to a new strategy in which there'd be no Ares 1 rocket, no Orion spacecraft, and commercial firms with commercial contracts would take over the task of launching astronauts into orbit. There was no presidential speech to trumpet the new strategy, no preview in the State of the Union Address, limited consultation with Congress, very little backup documentation, etc.

The Administration failed to control the narrative. We are a species that communicates with, and makes sense of the world through, stories (as someone wrote a while back). My piece the other day in The Post quoted Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) saying that folks in Florida think Obama killed the manned space program. Of course, Obama actually boosted funding for NASA, and a lot of money is going into technology development. But he nixed the idea of going back to the moon in the near term. Where will we go instead? Unclear. Undecided. The moon is still a possibility, but maybe we'll go to an asteroid or the moons of Mars

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2010/03/nasa_constellation_cancellatio.html?hpid=sec-nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 09:19:06