A cut too far.

It's not bullshit, or at least it ain't Trippy who's delivering it. Google it or see here, for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My guess is if they had more they would have listed them.

But the point is, it's not from the science mission of the Hubble that they came from, it was from the building of the telescope. And as Trippy keeps pointing out, we've built the JWST, so any spin off opportunities have already accrued.

As to the ISS, pretty funny.
Now you are picking and choosing which science you apparently think is more beneficial, and you are apparently in favor of science that has very low odds of providing any benefit to mankind over that which has a decent chance of doing so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It IS bullshit, even on the original NPR piece this came from, they pointed out that the $20 billion was not just for fuel for air-conditioning.

You just keep repeating the BS made by a guy who is "now in the private sector, selling technologies branded as energy-efficient to the Defense Department".

You (and the other many repeaters of this unadulterated BS) are going to make this guy rich.

I bet he won't even send you a X-mas card though.

Arthur

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not how science posters work. They're intended to present a brief synopsis of the work in a visually pleasing format which doesn't overwhelm the audience with info they probably won't understand. Posters are actually treated as a presentation medium of their own, just like science papers and conference talks.[/quote]

Aside from all the technologies that would be developed to deploy and operate the telescope, sure. If there wasn't more technological development in the pipeline, I don't see why they would estimate 7 more years to completion. So on the one hand you want to axe a space telescope after billions have already been spent on its development, but on the other hand you want to support continued multi-billion dollar investments in a space station whose scientific spinoffs (including from all the experiments) are purely speculative and have little to no chance of making a noticeable improvement in our quality of life, and could be performed at a cheaper cost in an unmanned environment anyhow.

The ISS doesn't stand much chance of providing any quality of life benefits to mankind either. You think the US has hundreds of trillions of dollars sitting around to send a few thousand people to Mars and keep them supplied? You think survival skills in low Earth orbit will help you if you're stranded in the forest? Since both projects are (in theory) committed primarily to scientific research, and the raw volume of scientific knowledge a new telescope can acquire will dwarf the scientific knowledge gained from an orbital space station, I don't think there's any contest as to which delivers more of the intended result.

Ok, I see you clearly didn't bother looking it up. Really hard to miss, just Google "Iraq air conditioning".

 

It doesn't say how much of the $20 billion can be passed off as fuel expenses for other operations, and based on the citation of reduced fuel consumption from passive cooling experiments in Iraq, it sounds pretty substantial. If you've got a more precise breakdown of the costs, go ahead and share it. I wouldn't worry about the air conditioning bill, though. If I were you, I'd be more worried about presidents feeling entitled to lie about their reasons for going to war and spending over $1 trillion of the nation's funds to back the ambition.

 

What it DOES say though is for Afghanistan, it spent $1.5 billion from October 2010 to May 2011 on fuel. That fuel was used for heating and air conditioning systems, but also for aircraft, unmanned aerial systems, combat vehicles, computers and electricity inside military structures.

So NO, considering that ~70% of military fuel goes to aircraft operations, then it's fair to assume that not that much of the $1.5 billion was for air conditioning.

So the $20 Billion number is PURE BS.

 

BS, they ALWAYS post the big benefits.
That's all the big ones they have, and they are all minor and not any of them are breakthroughs, just mild advances in technology.

I've been assured that the technology is "mostly ready to go".

Yes. I'd rather spend the 4 Billion on projects that might actually get launched and work within this decade.

Yes, because I think you are wrong.
So does NASA along with the French, Russians, Canadians and Japanese etc etc

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/partners_agreement.html

What is with this Mars BS?
When have I said I think we SHOULD go to Mars?
On the other hand, if we decide we want to go on long manned missions, such as going to Mars, then learning to live and work in space will be valuable.
By the same token, if we do discover a new drug that can only be manufactured in space, then our space construction skills will come in handy.
Etc etc.

More than the JWST would, IIRC the standard issue "space blanket" found in survival kits was developed out of LEO operations.

We can only answer that in a decade or so.
My opinion is you are very wrong about the relative value of the ISS vs the JWST.

 

If the U.S. were awash in free cash, I'd be opposed to the canceling of the JWST. It's not. Nothing against basic research, which I personally find fascinating, but you have to consider the other uses that cash could be spent on when setting a budget.

Could the JWST lead to new technologies? Sure, okay, but if that's the goal then the thing is a huge waste. Better to spend the same billions on funding direct research into new consumer technologies than on basic science, since you'd get more bang for your buck. In fact, we can cancel all of NASA on that ground, since NASA wastes money like it's going out of style. Putting its budget into a series of consumer based "X-Prizes" could be expected to be far more effective at generating new tech. (What it would not do is generate new basic space science.)

Suppose a man from NASA knocked on your door right now and asked you for $100 cash to fund the JWST. Assuming he could verify his identity, would you pay him? I am pretty sure that most of us, as much as we nerds love our space science, would say, "Hmm, sorry, but $100 is a lot of money."

How many Americans do you think would be willing to pay him? Do you think he'd find 45,000,000 people in this country able to give him $100 each? I don't, but that's what the JWST costs (actually that's just to get it into orbit on the very rough assumption that it will costs us $0 to operate).

If we wouldn't be willing to directly fund the program at $100 each, why should we be willing to pay $100 in increased taxes each to pay for this program? Because we're stupid and so we'd never stop to consider the problem that directly? Again, nothing against the science per se, as I'm sure I'd find it fascinating, but how many elderly Americans need to survive on cat food so that we can have pretty space pictures?

Again, if money were free, then no problem, but its not free and any dollars spend on NASA or the JWST are not being spent on something else, like Social Security benefits that will allow grandma to upgrade from dry cat food to Fancy Feast. That we are spending too much on Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with it. That we are wasting money that could be better spent in one arena, doesn't mean that we should waste money in a second arena just because I personally find it less wasteful. (If I were a GI in Baghdad, honorably performing in good faith those duties our government asked me to perform, I am pretty sure I'd have a different view on what our priorities should be.)

Truth is, I am in favor of ending the Iraq war *and* cutting funding to NASA.

 

While that is true, and incidental benefits should be considered in setting budgets, that is a little like supporting the war in Iraq (or military spending in general) because "look at all the advancements that came out of WWII" (or look at how the military started the internet, or invented jet engines, set up the GPS network, etc.).

I'd be very surprised if the most cost effective way to develop new "life changing" advances were not to invest in pure technology research: new drugs and medical procedures, faster CPUs, larger hard drives, better mousetraps, etc. Even investments in basic medical science seem more likely to lead to direct benefits than investments in space science.

As I said above, if money grew on trees and we could fund everything without any drawbacks, then there would be no issue; but so long as the law of scarcity remains in effect, priorities have to be set. "Somewhat prettier space pictures than we can achieve with current assets" should be a low priority.

If people want to privately fund that, that's fine, but spending tax dollars on it right now seems to be an extravagance.

 

Of for crying our loud James, how many times a day do I read that word in this forum?

Does everyone get a rebuke from you when it's used?

Do they?

You want me to report it every time it is used?

Well DO YOU?

(Do a seach on it and you will get over 10,000 hits)

No shit Sherlock. I'm debating him and that's a legitimate part of a debate to tell him "to STFU or support his assertions".
You know, a CHALLENGE.

No it's not. It was saying that calling the ISS a Jungle Gym in space was moronic (which it is).

If you are going to pretend to be a moderator then please learn the difference between saying that someone's ideas are moronic and calling them a moron.

Really?
You have never done it when others lied, and I reported it, you just closed the thread.
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2778183&postcount=108

In this thread I DID in fact point out where he lied (By claiming I supported a Mars Mission)
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781505&postcount=101

Not particularly. It clearly was not designed for such an exploration since Dark Matter does NOT radiate in the near infrared that it is designed to track.
There are experiments going on to indirectly find evidence of dark matter and dark energy, but the JWST was not designed to do so and it isn't one of it's particular areas of research.

What it WAS designed to do:
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/resources/SciQuest.pdf

Except peer reviewed scientific papers isn't a valid measure of anything but the number of papers, indeed every new paper could simply contradict the one before it. So when you use the term "successful" and "value for money" then what DIRECT monetary value do you see from the Hubble science?

Again, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I am in fact in favor of pure scientific research and am quite aware of its potential benefits.

You and others keep bringing up this STRAWMAN.

The fact is that I'm ok with cancelling a very expensive science project that is vastly over budget and mismanaged is what is at issue.

As to pure science vs directed science, as I replied to this question earlier in the thread: I am more in favor of most research money going to directed science to solve known problems, but I'm also ok with setting some money aside for pure research. And yes I'm aware that while doing pure science research on X we sometimes make unexpected breakthoughs, but then we do the exact same thing when doing directed research.

Arthur

 

But what you're telling everyone is that you're basically ignorant of what scientific research means.

If science only studied what is known, would we have things like lasers, computers, or electricity? Isn't it just an ignorant uninformed opinion of yours that "directed" research is better at resolving "known" problems? How do scientists get to know about these problems? How did whoever it was solve the problem of inventing microwave ovens, or the electron microscope, or modern medical scanners?

If you're going to be an ignoramus, do it somewhere else.

 

There are plenty of companies that are, for profit, right now, investigating known problems and seeking solutions. Take a look at almost any company with a research division in fact. 99% of them are not doing basic research any more. Now, if we ever run out of "known problems" then you can come back and make a pitch for spending money we don't have on basic reseach, but (A) we have a lot of known problems to focus on, like cancer, and (B) we DON'T have that money.

I understand that you like it (I like basic research too), but of you like it so much, then group together with like minded people and fund it yourself, don't force others to fund it for you and don't force us to borrow to pay for it.

You're talking like this project is free. The choice isn't between basic science or no basic science. The choice is between (A) federally funded basic science coupled with old people not getting their social security checks and (B) no federally funded basic science and old people having a slightly better chance at getting their social security checks. In other words every dollar spent on NASA has an opportunity cost. Until that law of economics changes, you're arguing that we should be happily going further into debt.

You might then modify your argument to pick on some program you disfavor and demand we cut that instead,. That's fair, but politics is a rough process, and very few things can be cut substantially, yet many things must be. The goal isn't to free up a few billion to fund the JWST, mind you, it's to free up enough cash that we aren't hemorrhaging our economic lifeblood any more, and we need to get that done in the next few years.

At the end of the day, though, NASA sucks. It's not their fault and they mean well, but they run "science" with all of the efficiency and good judgment that one expects when one hears the words "government bureaucracy". There may not be a better way to do it (maybe, not that that's been shown), but it makes complete sense why they go on the chopping block first.

Out of curiosity, were there any notable technological advances that came out of Hubble? (The advance of knowledge is great...that and $3 will buy you a gallon of gas, though.).

 

Nope, I was the one who brought up the distinction between directed and pure research, so clearly I know what it means.

And I've NEVER said we should ONLY study what is known, now have I?

Nope.
Clearly Directed Science IS better at producing these type of devices, which is why most of our budget is in fact for directed research into specific problems.
On the other hand, without pure science as the foundation there would be no directed science, so the two go hand in hand, but the funding for pure science will never equal the funding for directed science.

Arthur

 

Not so fast.

You used the term ARE HELPING, as in past tense, done deal, but the news release, which is really a sales pitch from NASA (they are licensing the technology), says only that they have potential utility, so any help to National Security or other use has yet to occur.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2011/11-043.html

The only irony I can see is that the link NASA provides is dead:

http://ipp.gsfc.nasa.gov/wavefront

 

Nope.
NASA just started this campaign and potential spin-offs are not the same as actual spin-offs and of course, these are not based on the actual Hubble or JWST Science mission.