RE: We pay NASA to do this?

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]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 5:36:14 AM

DomKen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

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.

Maybe this has to explained to you yet again, you cannot simply dismiss facts and then start speculating that things would be better if some other course had been followed without evidence. You cannot simply keep chanting 'opportunity cost' as if that was a silver bullet.

Your claim was "NASA is a waste of money." It has been more than adequately proven that NASA is not a waste of money. You have presented not one scintilla of evidence that putting the billions spent by NASA over the last 50 odd years into any other part of government or left in the hands of the taxpayers would have resulted in a better outcome. In actuality a compelling argument can be made that expanding NASA's budget is the smart course of action since it is so directly beneficial to the US.

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 81

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 2:34:43 PM

variation30

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe this has to explained to you yet again, you cannot simply dismiss facts and then start speculating that things would be better if some other course had been followed without evidence. You cannot simply keep chanting 'opportunity cost' as if that was a silver bullet.

Your claim was "NASA is a waste of money." It has been more than adequately proven that NASA is not a waste of money. You have presented not one scintilla of evidence that putting the billions spent by NASA over the last 50 odd years into any other part of government or left in the hands of the taxpayers would have resulted in a better outcome. In actuality a compelling argument can be made that expanding NASA's budget is the smart course of action since it is so directly beneficial to the US.

do you know what opportunity cost means? it means I'm not going to say whether or not we'd be better off with or without nasa because I don't have a crystal ball to tell me how things would go if nasa did not exist.

and it should be apparent that it is not adequately proven that nasa is not a waste of money as I would opt out of funding it if given the choice. I would wager a lot of other people would do the same.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 82

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 2:41:48 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

A government can't put every single expenditure to a referendum. A sufficient number of taxpayers obviously feel that the space program is a good use of their money, or they would have put a sufficient amount of pressure on a sufficient number of legislators to get NASA defunded. Through their elected representatives, the citizens of the country have made it clear they think the money is being spent well enough to continue spending it - or, at least, that they don't care very much about it one way or the other. That's the way it works. Life's not an Ayn Rand novel.

< Message edited by ThatDamnedPanda -- 10/17/2009 2:46:14 PM >

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 83

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/17/2009 3:48:43 PM

DomKen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe this has to explained to you yet again, you cannot simply dismiss facts and then start speculating that things would be better if some other course had been followed without evidence. You cannot simply keep chanting 'opportunity cost' as if that was a silver bullet.

Your claim was "NASA is a waste of money." It has been more than adequately proven that NASA is not a waste of money. You have presented not one scintilla of evidence that putting the billions spent by NASA over the last 50 odd years into any other part of government or left in the hands of the taxpayers would have resulted in a better outcome. In actuality a compelling argument can be made that expanding NASA's budget is the smart course of action since it is so directly beneficial to the US.

do you know what opportunity cost means? it means I'm not going to say whether or not we'd be better off with or without nasa because I don't have a crystal ball to tell me how things would go if nasa did not exist.

and it should be apparent that it is not adequately proven that nasa is not a waste of money as I would opt out of funding it if given the choice. I would wager a lot of other people would do the same.

Just because you won't acknowledge reality doesn't change it. NASA is not a waste of money. You directly benefit more by the money invested in NASA than by virtually any other human endeavour ever and certainly more than any such project costing so little.

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 84

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/18/2009 12:06:52 PM

variation30

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

A government can't put every single expenditure to a referendum. A sufficient number of taxpayers obviously feel that the space program is a good use of their money, or they would have put a sufficient amount of pressure on a sufficient number of legislators to get NASA defunded. Through their elected representatives, the citizens of the country have made it clear they think the money is being spent well enough to continue spending it - or, at least, that they don't care very much about it one way or the other. That's the way it works. Life's not an Ayn Rand novel.

would they have? I bet a sufficient number of taxpayers feel they would rather not pay their income tax, pay for bailouts, pay sin taxes, pay for foreign wars...yet these things are still funded. do you think that the citizens of the country have made it clear they think their money is being well spent on these issues as well?

to be honest, I don't care if this is the way it 'works' or not, that doesn't make it justifiable.

and it's adorable that you equate the free market with someone like ayn rand.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

Post #: 85

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 10/18/2009 12:11:22 PM

variation30

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Just because you won't acknowledge reality doesn't change it. NASA is not a waste of money. You directly benefit more by the money invested in NASA than by virtually any other human endeavour ever and certainly more than any such project costing so little.

ah. good thing you can acknowledge reality.

I bet I can think of a few other human endeavors that have benefited me more than nasa. let me try...the assembly line. that was hard. I'll try again. the gutenburg press.

so I should be happy with nasa and not argue whether or not I can opt out of funding it because you (you who know the reality of the situation) thinks its best I spend my money this way? hm.

_____________________________

all the good ones are collared or lesbians.

or old.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 86

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/13/2009 3:51:41 PM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Splash! NASA Moon Crash Struck Lots of Water

Splash! NASA's moon crash struck lots of water, making moon an enticing place to visit

Suddenly, the moon looks exciting again. It has lots of water, scientists said Friday — a thrilling discovery that sent a ripple of hope for a future astronaut outpost in a place that has always seemed barren and inhospitable.

Experts have long suspected there was water on the moon. Confirmation came from data churned up by two NASA spacecraft that intentionally slammed into a lunar crater last month.

"Indeed, yes, we found water. And we didn't find just a little bit. We found a significant amount," said Anthony Colaprete, lead scientist for the mission, holding up white gallon water buckets for emphasis.

Full article here

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)

Post #: 87

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/13/2009 10:12:05 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Splash !

Oddballs find water in desert on Earth. All they had to do was to blow off a bomb. Killed all the people off but the mission was deemed a success. Nel Brooks, a scientist for MASA said "Hell we don't have to send people to the moon now, we can just send them out to the desert". He added later that "It's better than starving them to death". He also commented on how important this reseach is, he said "Just think, we can solve all the world's problems in a scant few decades after armageddon".

Professor emeritus Ho Lier Thanthou of Basket Weaving International Guild (Bwig) commented that "This is a tremendous leap for mankind, it will open up whole new markets for our alumni". Professor Thanthou then commented on how difficult it is to outsource the industry offshore saying "This is one industry that is fairly bulletproof from free trade" and also indicated that his lobbying staff will be concentrating on removing barriers from trade with the moon and Mars in the unforseeable future. We are working for the future" he said.

In a Man on the street interview a respondent said "They sent a bomb to the moon ? I guess that makes sense. All the people down there must be in hell, no air or anything, I guess they have to put them out of their misery". The educational industry has said "We are looking for every way to use this unique opportunity to expand young minds, to teach them how to read and write, and one day even balance their checkbooks". The crowd cheered at that statement.

Numismatics speculated that coins worn by moon dust would increase in value, thus boosting their business. Chinese leaders are thrilled about the prospect of minting US coins, citing it as one of the growth industries of the 23rd century as the colonists find new needs.

Marketing specialists are working with IT professionals to provide fast internet service to the moon and Mars, "This will provide the vehicle for goods, services and commerce with these distant territories" said 68 year old Mo Ney Grubber, poised to become the head of the IRS under the planned 2016 elections.

Things are looking up !

T

(in reply to Sanity)

Post #: 88

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/13/2009 10:58:09 PM

Esinn

Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
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?

Lisa

It is just ignorant people(no negative implied) who believe it is a bad idea. Most people know very little about physics or astronomy passed 9th or 10th grade. Although ignorance is not a good excuse it is understandable - I even believe it is reasonable. This would be due to the fact that in depth knowledge about this field/these things in not necessary for the average joe or joanna.

_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to AlwaysLisa)

Post #: 89

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/14/2009 4:25:29 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Esinn, just thought I would give you a quick shout.

When confronted by this, one of the best analogies to use is trying to put big fans on a sailboat. It will not work because the force is generated at the, I want to say source because it rhymes, but that is not the word. There is no differential.

The Earth and moon can crash right into each other and still orbit the sun forever, as long as nothing changes the velocity or tragectory of the total mass. In fact the mass doesn't even matter.

If you think this is hard, try explaining the diffeence between a year and a sideareal year. People look at you like you're some kind of scientist or something !

T

(in reply to Esinn)

Post #: 90

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/14/2009 5:37:30 PM

rockspider

Posts: 633
Joined: 9/26/2009
Status: offline

Well NASA has now for 50 years been the absolute most succesfull spaceventure in the world. The spin off effect of its research and its impact on the American economy is hard to gauge. But in its shadow USA became the absolute leader in computers, electronics and metalurgi. It seems that either you guys loosing impetus or we are getting better at catching up. But that decision made back in the sixties by JFK to send a man to the moon was no less than a stroke of genius (or was he a reckless gambler. Well then he was mr Lucky). I think if all of it is weighted up then NASA has been a good investment.
Here we just given the mad scientists a toy which cost more than anything ever build before. Nobody can really say what it is for as such. The scientist who is responsible talks a language which 99,9 percent of people don't understand. Well the core of the investment is really to solve the ridle of the process in the sun. If we can duplicate it, cheap, clean and plentyfull energy will be just around the corner in the socalled fission reactor. I sincerely hope that this seemingly insane spending turns out to be just as visionaire as JFK's "The United Staes will put a man on the moon in less than 10 years". But it could be looser too. But then maybe it shows new and complete unthougth ideas up, which will be extremely beneficial and even profitable. Playing in this league is always enormus gambles but those crazy boys have a funny habit of making the world a better place for all.
Let them play. But why do they always have to look like they got a screew loose. Have you seen the head of CERN?

(in reply to variation30)

Post #: 91

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/14/2009 5:49:49 PM

rockspider

Posts: 633
Joined: 9/26/2009
Status: offline

Well consider something else. 60 million year ago earth was hit by a meteor. It impacted in Kazakstan, somewhere in Russia. 11 km Wide kanonball made of solid rock travelling at about 100 km a second. It kicked up a dustcloud which blocked out sunlight for several years and is widely blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Ok the landscape around the impact was severely damaged, but the integrety of the earths outer layers was not breached. Neither is there any indication of major shift in rotation due to this.
Another one. In the early 1990'ies mother earth let out a little fart. The Phillipine volcano Mount Minotuba did erupt with a force equalling 200000 times the Hiroshima bomb. Scientist did register an absolute minor shift in rotation and stability for a very short period, but it recovered instantly.
Now your guys is worrying over chucking an oversized car in to the moon. Hell get real.

(in reply to rockspider)

Post #: 92

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/15/2009 9:55:23 PM

cosmicowgurl

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/6/2009
Status: offline

It will never cease to amaze me how some people can criticize NASA and call it a waste of money when some of man’s greatest achievements have come from the observations and the space program, sadly the other from our ever present need to find new ways to kill one another. SIGH!
Of the two I’ll put money with NASA every time frankly. From Mercury to New Horizons we as a species have discovered more about our universe in the last 50 years than the last 5 centuries so I ask you how can you NOT justify NASA? Just more proof that the anti-intelligence movement is alive a well and if left to the designs of those who want still live with their notion of a flat earth we would be still debating if you’ll fall off if you sail past the horizon or worst yet the Earth is only 6 thousand years old.
We by nature are explorers and the stars are now our new horizon so what money is spent by NASA to explore the stars isn’t enough and I and most intelligent people see our future is in the stars so all I have left to say is what’s just past the third star to right, let’s find out.

(in reply to rockspider)

Post #: 93

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/15/2009 9:57:36 PM

cosmicowgurl

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/6/2009
Status: offline

Sorry Rockspider my post was suppose to be in response to variation30 I agree with you.

(in reply to cosmicowgurl)

Post #: 94

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/15/2009 10:17:34 PM

BrokenSaint

Posts: 301
Joined: 10/30/2007
Status: offline

My first reaction when I heard about this (I heard they were going to "Bomb the moon") was "When was Cobra Commander appointed director of NASA? Not that I disapprove, but just curious."

_____________________________

In the name of progress,
In the name of madness
Drum beats faster
Crowd shouts louder
and chaos replaces order
VnV Nation - Nemesis

(in reply to cosmicowgurl)

Post #: 95

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/15/2009 11:16:29 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I agree Cosmic, NASA is not a waste of money. What I am saying is that this mission was. With people starving on the streets and dying for the most basic humanitarian efforts, this should not have been done. The information gleaned is worthless right now. For the profit, of whatever sort, to come to fruition will be at the end of years of research and more. More money actually.

Let me give you a very strange metaphor. The act is not strange but how it relates to this situation is.

My buddy an I go up to Aldi's. He has his credit card and is going to spring for some food. OK, we get up there and he doesn't have a quarter on him. I reached down in my pocket and tried to hand him a buck. He said "NO, I need a quarter to get a cart". Neither one of us had a quarter on us, and we looked around the floor of the car as well, had to go back to my house, I got in the 'jar' and retrieved a dandy quarter.

How this relates I believe comes down to priotitization. Don't give me what you think I need, give me what I ask for. I want to know just what practical purpose is served by knowing the volume of H2O trapped in moon fucking dust. What are we going to do, tell people who are dying of thirst that all they have to do is get their ass to the moon ?

Think I'm kidding ? What are the targets when you attack militarily ? Electric plants, refineries, government building and what else ? The water works. If they are using converted seawater, you hit the desalinization plants. You bring you own water. The people you attack have none. Yes I am an expert on Man's inhumanity to Man.

But colonizing the moon is a long way off. Moondust wrecks everything, so a new better material must be invented. Then if it is so special it is doubtful that they'll be able to produce it there the first day, so that they have an environment in which to produce it. So that means it must be made here on Earth. Now how to get it there. Lessee, what was that figure for a gallon of water ? And that only weighs eight pounds. What do you think these domes people live under would weigh ?

As much as I think this project is a waste, I don't say NASA is a waste. Even NASCAR is not a waste for the same reason. The technology developed is significant. Ever hear of tyvek ? Metallurgy has not suffered, and neither did electronics.

But then there's always this :
/
We walked into the whitehouse and expected to see security everywhere. This was strange. The ecomony collapsed yesterday and I decided to take the kids theer, while the builing still stood. But there were no people there. We walked all over the place, in the bedrooms, even the oval office. Nobody, absolutely nobody was in that building.

Then looking out the window we saw a light rise up in the east, and take off to parts unknown. It was a full moon, so after I thought about it I figured they went to the moon.
/

My Dad said to me "All that space exploration stuff, that's for them, not for us". I swear that mutherfucker just keeps getting smarter as I age. Doesn't matter that he's been dead for six months, still getting smarter. If they blow the world up you think they even have any thought of moving 300,000,000 refugees ? Even a crackpot on drugs wouldn't even consider it. It would probably get him thrown out of the crackpot club.

So they found water on the moon, so what ? Water is in damnear every body in this galoaxy.

No, NASA is not a waste of money, but this project certainly is. And who's money is it BTW ?

T

(in reply to cosmicowgurl)

Post #: 96

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/15/2009 11:23:12 PM

DomKen

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

Actually Termy, a permanent station on the moon is part of NASA's next major manned program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation

Finding subsurface ice means it may be possible to produce potable water locally rather than lifting it from here. That would save a lot of money.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 97

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/16/2009 1:56:40 AM

cosmicowgurl

Posts: 19
Joined: 8/6/2009
Status: offline

A very good point not to mention a ready source of fuel thus reducing the payload from Earth. A station on the Moon is now a realistic possibility now that water has been found on the surface. However water in the universe is present and has been found in the remnants of novas so I'm not all that surprised it was found on the Moon and more plentiful than we imagined.
It's also important to note that Mars Society has been working on the same thing for sometime and actually been testing their ideas in remote parts of Utah and in the artic circle to better simulate the day to day riggers of life on another planet. I hope NASA looks at their data to be better prepared for the Moon then Mars.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 98

RE: We pay NASA to do this? - 11/16/2009 2:00:10 AM

allthatjaz

Posts: 2878
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline

The discovery of water in the form of ice or anything else on the moon means you have hydrogen and oxygen stored. Hydrogen, oxygen and water are all you need to found a civilization or a launch pad for exploration of the universe.
The rights and wrongs or relevance of this experiment to what is going on, on the earth may seem remote now but as part of the ongoing exploration of our planet and those around us that began in the late 60's, it is very significant.
What we should choose to do with what we have learnt in this experiment over the coming decades is what is interesting me.

_____________________________

S&M (Steve and Maria) persona libre de convencionalismos

Fan of edgeplay.co.uk

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 99

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: We pay NASA to do this?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

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

0.109