Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: We pay NASA to do this?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: We pay NASA to do this? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/14/2009 10:22:23 PM   
Muttling


Posts: 1612
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


Many things that used to be fiction are now fact. Watch an old Star Trek and their communicators. Now have a look at your modern cellphone.


Yes, lets look at the modern cell phone.

It won't reach to space.  It's not a satellite phone and you can ring up Spock on the Enterprise with it.

Science fiction is based on the theories of reality, but they add a LOT of fiction to those theories to make a good story.  

Lets look to the movie "The Hunt for Red October".  It was all based on a sub that we couldn't hear as a being a prelude to war.   Ummmm....Get real, we couldn't hear the existing Typhoons unless they were running the pumps on the near side of the ship to us.

Science fiction is fun because it BLURS the difference between fiction and non-fiction.  What you see in the movies isn't always real.  I did ordnance disposal for 15 years (69D for those who are wondering.)  People always ask, "So you know what color wire to cut?"   Ummmmm...NO.....In a real bomb, the wires are all the same color.  It's the Hollywood bombs that have different color wires.

quote:

Of course in this way we should realize that we have the exclusive right (and responsibility) to shape the future. This type of fiction is incorporated into my reasoning process. If I do this now, what happens tomorrow ?


At what point do you stop believing the writings of a fiction author who wants to tell a good story and start listening to those who are interested in non-fiction?

quote:

This little bomb on the moon means nothing really, but with each step, there are some who will push the envelope further. I disapprove of FDR's decision to go ahead with Manhattan. There was a percieved chance that it could be catastophic. His position that if it saves US lives it was worth the risk was well beyond his authority IMO, but he went ahead anyway. This was wrong IMO.


FDR was faced with an enemy who was doing the research regardless of what he did.  He had Albert Einstien writing him a letter saying, we need to get this weapon before the Nazi's do. Put yourself in his position and ask the question...

A percieved risk by those who are NOT closely involved in this research?

A risk that it might run away (which the real experts are saying it won't)  and the Nazi's are trying to do it anyhow?


quote:

Who knows what they will do next ?


Genetically engineer bioweapons and then export that technology to Cuba as well as North Korea.  Oh wait, the Russians did that 15 years ago.

< Message edited by Muttling -- 10/14/2009 10:25:06 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/14/2009 10:23:34 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa
I think exploration has it's good points..that was never my concern and no, Im not worried about moon quakes, whomever stated that, lol

Ever watch Sci Fi?   You know the ones where they go back in time?   A simple act like squashing a bug, can have a ripple effect on the planet for years to come.  I still think we are an arrogant lot to assume our actions have no lasting effects, no matter how minute and unimportant we think they are.

The fact is the same argument could be applied to mining on Earth, I'm positive far more kinetic energy is transmitted into the earth by each operating mine than was involved in this probe. However we've been doing that for a very long time with no dire consequences for the planet as a whole. The physics of the situation also says nothing is going to happen as well. When theory and practice both predict nothing will happen it is a safe bet that nothing bad is going to happen when you do it.

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/14/2009 10:28:49 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

Yes, lets look at the modern cell phone.

It won't reach to space.  It's not a satellite phone and you can ring up Spock on the Enterprise with it.



And THIS is why I do not have a cell phone!  If I cannot talk to Spock, I do not want one until I can! 

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Muttling)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/14/2009 11:15:28 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheyenne1989

I agree that it is more than likely a waste of money to spend probably millions of dollars (I'm assuming somewhere in there, seeing as it is a space trip) to crash a piece of metal into the moon. But I have to say that NASA is not a waste of money. Ever been to the NASA space center in Huntsville? It's so cool :D


I've been there, it was alright. but it's a horribly inefficient program with a less than spectacular record. given my druthers, I would not spend a single cent to fund it.

SpaceX, on the other hand...I might buy stock in that.


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Cheyenne1989)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 12:21:03 AM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

NASA is a waste of money.

I doubt many people would willingly give up money to someone who said they were raising it so they could build a space vehicle, ram it into the moon, and see if they find evidence of water.

though at least this is less wasteful than sending humans into space.


Do you understand that the computer you typed this post on is a product of research done in support of the Apollo Program? As a matter of fact the integrated circuit chip, central to virtually all modern technology, only became economically feasible due to the advances made in the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer.


*ahem*

opportunity costs.

you're going to have a hard time telling me what would or would not have happened were it not for the compulsory funding of a program. for all we know if funds were not funneled towards nasa, we'd have something better.

the question I have is this, if nasa's funding was voluntary, how much money would it get (if they kept their current course)?


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 6:44:45 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		So you just handwave away the facts. It is the sign of a well thought out position that deals with all the facts not ignore them.

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 9:35:33 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		"At what point do you stop believing the writings of a fiction author ..."

Actually I don't have a problem seperating fantasy from reality. So in fact I really never believed them in the first place, but the point was that similarities exist. That dreams do become reality. It might not be totally accurate of course, but my point was more that it provides a form of mental acrobatics. In fact I looked for errors in scifi, it was sort of a hobby of mine. Some things are pretty much impossible.

In fact the references I make from time to time about time travel must be taken with a grain of salt. This because I believe it is and forever will remain an impossibility. Some may call that wishful thinking because I do not want to be proven wrong. The potential for abuse is too high. But my actual reason for believing that time travel is impossible is based on my own reasoning and could be debated. (some other time, sounds like a whole thread to me) Suffice it to say that I will not be convinced easily.

I could pick Star Trek apart for forever and a day. However about the communicators - there are hand held devices in use that do pick up from satellites right now, the GPS. Usually when the call came to the Enterprise it was in geosynchonous orbit around a planet. The old "Beam me up Scotty". Though I do know how a GPS works, I don't know about a GPS based tracking device, that is one which will report it's location. I don't think they actually transmit to the satellites, I think they have a band and terrestrial based recievers, like cellphone towers. Something like that. But it is a step in that direction.

This was all before the PC era, and I had alot of trouble understanding how one could pilot such a ship using buttons and a screen. I had trouble with the fact that there was no stick or wheel, nor even pedals. But now with a grasp of the GUI I see how it could be done. Position and direction are treated as numbers. Sort of like lattitude and longitude.

In other words, I never thought it was reality, until it was. Many things did not shape up exactly as forseen, but foresight can never be as accurate as hindsight, even if one has poor hindsight.

Enough for now. Good rebuttal, I may address more of it later. But it does seem you misread me slightly. Also possible is that I did not choose the optimum words, I'll have to go back and reread stuff, but right now I have places to see and people to do, or something like that.

T

(in reply to Muttling)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 3:18:10 PM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you just handwave away the facts. It is the sign of a well thought out position that deals with all the facts not ignore them.


a speculation is far from a fact. you are saying that without nasa and its spending, we would not have x or would be worse off. it is impossible to say whether or not this is true. I could just as easily say that without spending money on nasa and having that money free in the hands of individuals, another better product would be sitting in front of us.

I thought I summed that up with the phrase 'opportunity cost'.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 3:32:49 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa
Is it just me...or does anyone else think crashing a vehicle into the moon is a bad idea?

We are so closely tied into the moons orbit, why are we meddling with the possibility of screwing things up even further on this planet?


The moon is hit once a week by things that we aren't in control of -- rocks, meteors, etc. This makes no difference at all.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 6:56:05 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you just handwave away the facts. It is the sign of a well thought out position that deals with all the facts not ignore them.


a speculation is far from a fact. you are saying that without nasa and its spending, we would not have x or would be worse off. it is impossible to say whether or not this is true. I could just as easily say that without spending money on nasa and having that money free in the hands of individuals, another better product would be sitting in front of us.

I thought I summed that up with the phrase 'opportunity cost'.

No. I said it is because of NASA that we have affordable IC chips. That is a fact of history. Speculating that it might have turned out the same way is simple hand waving.

The fact is NASA is one of the greatest investments US taxpayers have ever made. The return on investment has far exceeded the amount we spent on the program.

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 7:09:00 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling

Yes, lets look at the modern cell phone.

It won't reach to space.  It's not a satellite phone and you can ring up Spock on the Enterprise with it.



And THIS is why I do not have a cell phone!  If I cannot talk to Spock, I do not want one until I can! 


Logical.

Besides, they use microwaves--and size matters!

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/15/2009 7:12:21 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Ever watch Sci Fi?   You know the ones where they go back in time?   A simple act like squashing a bug, can have a ripple effect on the planet for years to come.  I still think we are an arrogant lot to assume our actions have no lasting effects, no matter how minute and unimportant we think they are.


This point is brought up in a Star Trek movie, when Scotty is questioned about helping an engineer create transparent aluminum.

"Well," he answers, "How do we know he isn't the one who invented the stuff?"

My man Scotty. Practical and sensible.

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/16/2009 8:26:07 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Actually MM the Earth was getting destroyed anyway, so what's the difference ?

Really he most likely did tamper with the timeline. That company's stock probably jumped, they got big. Different people got rich. Luckily I guess in that case there was nothing horrendous, like the guy took over the world or anything like that.

When they crash landed in the ocean, did they know things had changed ? Even minutely ? To be aware of the change they would have to be isolated from it, and that, even in the most stringent mental exercise would be practically impossible to determine. And was his reasoning like FDR's, that the risk was not so great, or did he figure that if they got back at least there was a chance ?

Enough for now, I don't want to hijack. I think I did try to start a thread on that topic but nobody took a bite. Well, not a big bite.

As a rule though, people are very shortsighted. Some seem to have a problem thinking minutes into the future, literally. And this foolhardy ragtag gang who has taken over the world doesn't give a shit for some reason. They kill their golden geese, they make war for no fucking reason, they do things with effects measured in half lives. They bomb shit, and corrupt the meterological patterns with underground testing even though they know damn well the things work just fine.

If everyone can understand that scifi is used simply as a model, and not taken too seriously, we can proceed. There was a movie I think was called Crack In The World or something like that. Scientists came up with the idea to drill really deep into the Earth's core to tap into a practically ulimited source of geothermal energy, solving many problems all at once. However there was a school of thought and debate about the possibility of the operation causing a huge fissure in the mantle, which would supposedly crack the planet in half. Well IIRC it happened, and of course the aftermath, which was probably inaccurate, but the show had to go on. I actually don't remember the end of it, it's very old.

But the point is, people in a room somewhere made decisions which could profoundly affect every being on this planet. What did they say when it happened in the movie - "Oops" ?. The people who made the decision to go ahead with the project shoulod have been thrown alive into said crack to "try to patch it". It wouldn't work of course, but after what THEY did, think about it.

So I maintain that FDR did not have said authority. If you have a one in say six billion chance of destroying the world doing something should you take the chance ? Do you have the right to take the chance ?

That is reality, not scifi.

T

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/16/2009 10:52:42 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		It's interesting--one scientist gave a compelling talk that we should be called not Earth, but Ocean, as by far most of the area and most of the life are in the oceans.

Only our terrestrial arrogance sees it differently, and would so casually crash into "empty ocean."

But hey--we change things daily in the present continually. Why are these actions sancrosanct? Truth is, many of them should be redone for better results.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 10/16/2009 10:53:28 AM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/16/2009 11:04:38 AM   
rikigrl


Posts: 203
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa

Not what Im saying at all.   Listen closely.   It's not the damage that will occur upon impact, but rather what "may" happen years down the road.   Sort of like that rock that hits your windshield, it often will produce only a small, even un noticed "blip" in the glass, but over time that small imperfection has the possibility to span the entire surface.

There are chances to take in life, that won't effect others and I say go for it!   But when we are dealing with the unknown and how it could involve a great deal of the population, I say we should think twice, even three times.

I'm not carrying a sign claiming the earth is ending, or the moon will split in two sections, geesh...  I "am" saying that we don't know what effect these blastings will have in the generations to come.   We can't possibly know and it's damn arrogant of us to think we do.  


Under no circumstances google LHC, you may not sleep for a week.

As an aside, the LHC bothers me not in the least, i do have great fun teasing a scientist friend in England (PhD in mathematics from Oxford) though, telling her that she'll be sucked into the generated black hole before me 'cause i'm so far away lol. 

< Message edited by rikigrl -- 10/16/2009 11:23:47 AM >

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/16/2009 12:38:58 PM   
Muttling


Posts: 1612
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Actually I don't have a problem seperating fantasy from reality.



The responders to your posts have repeatedly pointed out how you do have this problem and you have repeatedly ignored realities.  In your own opinion, the ONE hit from a tiny item is going to be different that the millions of previous hits.   That's just not a reasonable conclusion.

Ignore the world around you and believer for the sci fi writers who write fiction looking to sell a story while admitting "It's JUST a story, it's fiction based on science that may or may not come true." 

< Message edited by Muttling -- 10/16/2009 12:46:13 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/16/2009 12:45:44 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

she'll be sucked into the generated black hole before me 'cause i'm so far away lol. 


So Far Away

And one of a few select songs that seems to always get me teary.

Sigh. Now I'm gonna be sentimental about black holes...

(in reply to rikigrl)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 12:16:56 AM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No. I said it is because of NASA that we have affordable IC chips. That is a fact of history. Speculating that it might have turned out the same way is simple hand waving.

The fact is NASA is one of the greatest investments US taxpayers have ever made. The return on investment has far exceeded the amount we spent on the program.


It's no more hand waving than saying without nasa we would not be in a similar position or better position. it's also impossible to say how much we've benefited from nasa's research because of the opportunity cost of funding something that has problems remembering if it's using the metric system or the imperial system. that's just simple epistemology.

what irks me is that this 'investment' is compulsory - as I'd rather not pay for it.


_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 12:19:43 AM   
variation30


Posts: 1190
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's interesting--one scientist gave a compelling talk that we should be called not Earth, but Ocean, as by far most of the area and most of the life are in the oceans.

Only our terrestrial arrogance sees it differently, and would so casually crash into "empty ocean."


...that must have been a waste of 45 minutes.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 3:03:29 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline 		While it may be correct to say there is no way we can accurately sum up the ways we have benefitted from NASA, it would be very incorrect to dismiss the benefits we have gotten from NASA.  As DK pointed out computers is one.  Do you also know that many women's lives were saved/spared by breast cancer, due to the simulation of a flawed design in Hubble?  Not to mention, space venture is a global effort and not participating in that effort puts us behind on an international level.  (maybe nothing that matters to you, but just because that doesn't or might not matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter).

"You cannot script these kinds of outcomes, yet they occur daily. The cross-pollination of disciplines almost always creates innovation and discovery. And nothing accomplishes this like space exploration, which draws from the ranks of astrophysicists, biologists, physiologists, chemists, engineers and planetary geologists. Their collective efforts have the capacity to improve and enhance all that we have come to value as a modern society.
 
How many times have we heard the mantra: Why are we spending billions of dollars up there in space when we have pressing problems down here on Earth? Let's re-ask the question in an illuminating way: What is the total cost in taxes of all spaceborne telescopes, planetary probes, the rovers on Mars, the space station and shuttle, telescopes yet to orbit and missions yet to fly? Answer: less than 1% on the tax dollar—7/10ths of a penny, to be exact. I'd prefer that it were more, perhaps 2 cents on the dollar. Even during the storied Apollo era, peak NASA spending amounted to no more than 4 cents on the tax dollar. At that level, NASA’s current space-exploration program would reclaim our pre-eminence in a field we pioneered."

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/articles/americaexplorespace

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to variation30)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: We pay NASA to do this? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109