Bush blows off return to moon

You are somewhat mistaken. Take a prime example - medical telemetry. You can monitor patients remotely so that one nurse can monitor twenty patients with ease - noone even thought of it before Mercury, and it wouldn't have been developed otherwise. The thing you have to remember here Persol is that necessity is the mother of invention - engineers don't sit about dreaming up solutions to problems as yet unposed - the only case I can think of in recent times where that's happened was the laser - and that was dreamt up by Einstein, who - though many things - was not an engineer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Thankfully!).

Indeed?
Then you're not looking hard enough:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That image represents a fundamental change in mindset - because looking at it you appreciate how fundamentally small and fragile we are. Going there, taking that photo - that alone to me is worth the price.

If you want a more Economist-minded accounting, you'd have to look at the digital computer industry and see how much it takes in every year - $25 billion? Gates could pay that off himself. Hell, Paul Allen is doing that, by funding the Burt Rutan X-prize entry, SpaceShipOne.

And if you want a more "patriotic" accounting, consider this - all those jet fighters and ICBMs built by McDonnell-Douglas and Grumman and the other major contractors, which assured US supremacy and brought about the world you live in? They wouldn't exist if those companies hadn't gotten the space contracts they did - because those contracts were basicly a licence for advanced R&D into basic techniques, funded by the US government and with the backing of the US people.

And finally consider the budget spent on projects like the Minuteman ICBM project and others - which never have and can never have a positive use for humanity - compared to the entire NASA budget since the inception of the space program.
You've never gotten a better deal. Ever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But, like the laser, there wasn't a need for it beforehand. We just did without and never questioned that there might be a better way to do things.
Test pilots reported subjective data regarding how their bodies coped with flight stress, larger numbers of nurses were hired, and so on.

Yes. That was the point - that man had gone that far, so that he could look back and see his origins.
Note the phrasing - not american, not russian, not european or [/i]indian[/i] or chinese - man.
That's an easy distinction for us to make, we've seen the photo, we know of apollo and gemini and mercury as historical fact.
At the time, however...

I told you - computers were heading in the direction of gaining more power, but not towards minaturisation and thus PCs. Mainframes were seen as the way forward until Gemini.

No, because we don't sit about and think up ideas without at least a small need to fulfill.
And stuff doesn't get manufactured and tested in a commercial environment on that basis, ever.

Those projects did take the technical spinoffs from NASA, yes, and to a degree limited by "National Security Concerns", vice versa - but at the end of the day, NASA's budget over fifty years was spent on individual military "defence" projects that could never be used without ending the human race.
So bitching that NASA was a waste of money seems.... daft, really.

If you want to achieve tasks A, B and C, then yes - quite often unmanned missions are better.

But the whole point of manned missions is to go there.
To quote Deke Slayton - "if you argue that the man in the capsule is unnecessary, then you concede that man has no place in space"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Yes. That was the point - that man had gone that far, so that he could look back and see his origins.
Note the phrasing - not american, not russian, not european or [/i]indian[/i] or chinese - man.
We went there BECAUSE of the space race and competition between man. The whole point was to prove that 'us' (americans) were better than 'them' (russians).

I told you - computers were heading in the direction of gaining more power, but not towards minaturisation and thus PCs. Mainframes were seen as the way forward until Gemini.
And the PDP-1 was what? That's not the only computer that was heading in the direction of miniturization. Regardless, the cost I listed earlier was only for the Apollo project. If you want to include the cost of Apollo and everything before it we can.

No, because we don't sit about and think up ideas without at least a small need to fulfill.
And stuff doesn't get manufactured and tested in a commercial environment on that basis, ever.
So NASA is the only place on the planet that inovates? That's just funny.

Those projects did take the technical spinoffs from NASA, yes, and to a degree limited by "National Security Concerns", vice versa - but at the end of the day, NASA's budget over fifty years was spent on individual military "defence" projects that could never be used without ending the human race.
So bitching that NASA was a waste of money seems.... daft, really.
Like I said... arguing that it wasn't as large a waste of money as ICBMs is a very weak argument. However, you seem to be forgetting that at the time there appeared to be a need for this research. How would history been different only Russia had ICBMs?

If you want to achieve tasks A, B and C, then yes - quite often unmanned missions are better.
But the whole point of manned missions is to go there.
That is a VERY weak argument. Are you trying to argue that all this money was well spent because it makes you warm and fuzzy inside?

To quote Deke Slayton - "if you argue that the man in the capsule is unnecessary, then you concede that man has no place in space"
No. It's conceding that man has no place in space for the reasons given. There are reasons for man to go to space, but not just because we can.

 

hey guys, I'll jump in on this discussion:

I'm in favor of manned spaceflight, but I agree that it could be done more efficiently by opening it up (the space fronteer) to civil industry. Even sponsored by goverments worldwide.

Manned spaceflight is our destiny, if someone fails to see this: then it would mean to this person that there's no future to live for.

I personally would ride up there if I could and be the first in line for a generation type of starship. Just to get off this lump of earth with it's wacky humans.

wouldn't it be a good idear, instead of leaving the ISS program, and return to the moon to build an infrastructure there,....

to move the ISS into moon orbit? or even an L1 point fromwhere some better sience can be done?
In this way, you save a lot on the nessecary base fundamentals, you could occasionally descent to the lunar surface and do some sience,...

Now, I'm a visonary, even if spoken for myself,...but even I can come up with Idears for improvement or ways to fit the current program to a more advanced one in some economical way, so why havn't our goverments worldwide didn't do this already?

It's what the people want: more planets to live on.

Peace & coöperation is just a better way to get there than war & rivalry will ever be.

If you can see no point in my points than you are just being ignorent of the fact that we could already be on our way to explore the universe,...and colonise other habitable systems
if it where not for the stubornness of people just like you,...


Lack of vision I call this, no offence, really: I understand.
But what I don't understand is this:

How come, leadership comes so easely to people who really don't have the best idears with humanity in mind.

Humans are really better of in space with not only earth as a base but with many human settlements troughout the solar systems of space.

You don't even have to take my word for it,...look for yourself how beneficial human spacefaring would be,....

That ofcourse, requires eyes with wich you can see the future,...

ONLY visionaries have such vieuw upon the future: but there are many:
the fact is that humans live by the grace of their expectations

I personally expect a lot from the world, because I myself mean nothing to it. I can't contribute anything,....so I don't count. That hurts: now I don't need people telling themselves that it's all useless and in vain.

I elevated myself and am prepared to elevate others too. I am important! +And you can change your mind.

I hope some day soon, humanity changes it's focus, and fixes her eyes on that border between us and salvation.

It's within our destiny to reach out and expand,...the world is not an eternal place,...we need to start NOW

Space is full of resources, leaders are so stupid to want to solve this by taking other country's resources instead.

What can I say to you that will change your mind?


peace,
fukushi

 

If I recall correctly from my economic lessons I had back in college, the economy can only benefit long term from projects that produce either one of the two: 1. Consumer product. 2. Capital product.

Everything else doesn't benefit the economy in the long run. One example is military ammunitions. After you build them, they just sit there. Some get used but most get scraped eventually because of weapons upgrade. It the short run it creates jobs for people to build them but not for the long haul. It also waste tax payer's money. A lot of people believe that, the reason Japan was very power economically is because they don't have to waste tax payer's money in military.

Space exploration is another example that doesn't belong to either one of the two. If during those projects, we can invent technologies that benefit our productivity, then it can be considered as a capital good. Otherwise they are just wasteful luxuries.

I think Bush wants to go back to the moon and mars because he wants to get elected.

BTW, sorry about the grammar. I haven't been doing the forum thing in a while.

 

Sorry joeman, but you're incorrect. Space exploration produces a capital product - intellectual property in the form of data from research (consider it the intellectual form of infrastructure if you will). That data is distributed to the private sector gratis which means that private industry is saved the cost of research and thus can focus on development of products, which have lower prices in consequence.

Ie. You fund research in the public sector and the whole private sector benefits - including those employed in the private sector, who go on to pay taxes and return the money invested in the research with significant interest.

The point to note here is that that situation is not a zero-sum game - it's an increasing-sum game, a positive feedback loop in fact.

 

Good facts Sparks!

Hi Joeman, long time no see,...can we convince you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you know: not so long ago I thought that bush had listened to much to jamiroqai: 'everybody is going to the moon' I tought that was funny,...

But I always was in favor of the space program,...I would love to see it expanded,..but that's not how far congres can take it,...

In fact: 'if' the revised program gets aproved, I think we should be verry glad and thankfull.

More capital product! GO NASA! GO NASA! The future is now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(I'm happy)

 

A very easy answer here. (Bit of an advert here)

" Tired of people not listening to your campaign speeches?.
Want to get their attention for at least 5 minutes?

Then what you need to do, is leak that you intend to tell the world your going to build a moon base and then everyone will be hanging on every word, just waiting for moon base to be said."

 

Fukushi, it's nice to be back. I have a full time job, and I am a graduate student. I don't have much time for forums.

For the record, I am all for space exploration even if it is negative feedback loop. I was disgusted by Bush's space initiative for many political reasons, which I will leave off this discussion.

 

Congratz on your job, and your graduate-career!

I'm taking in a lot of threads,...had a lot to do and didn't browse the forum for a while, until,....

BOOM!BANG!BING!

I wondered how the folks here were doing, so I decided to take a look: not bad: this new look just fits nicely with my new opera-browser,...hehehe: but it didn't come easely: I first flipped out completely! Whaa! I wanted those COOL black background color with white text on it,....

It'll come back,...just help me naggin for it will ya?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

About the space-program: it has always been around,...but now it seems to have given a 'special' intrest by the attention wich has been drawn to it,...

And that's a possitive thing. Definately!

The only bad thing about it is: that it happened to be that 'smuck' of a president that announced it,....

But no tears for that,...I'm happy that the matter is fuelling some intrest in the space-bussines and philosophy surrounding it,...good good.

Greetz!
fukushi

 

In my opinion it is futile to attempt to justify manned space exploration in terms of economic benefits. It's pretty well established that the 'tech spinoff' argument for manned space flight isn't valid. Historically the cost of development for NASA's spinoffs has far outweighed their value, and there is little reason to suspect that research into manned space flight is any more economically beneficial than research into unmanned space exploration.

Private industry is already conducting research, and doing it far more efficiently than NASA is able to. If it is economically beneficial to research something, someone will do it. There's no need to use research into manned space vehicles as an intermediary.

And please, we all know that we won’t be mining asteroids or helium 3 and time soon.

 

Actually, it's pretty well established that it is valid. Books have been written on the subject, studies carried out, and the results keep saying that a dollar invested in NASA got more return for the economy as a whole than a dollar invested anywhere else.

Now that's not even the same argument. And it's still wrong. Necessity is the mother of invention. If a man doesn't have to go into a hostile environment, we won't invent the technologies that keep him alive in there, and you won't see any spinoffs from that or direct results. And for the "oh, but you could invest in the spinoffs directly" crowd:
1) The spinoff requires the inspiration from the project to be though of;
2) Once the spinoff is though of, it is funded directly. NASA will usually cover the initial work and then the NAS takes over.

No they're not and you can see for yourself why they're not doing it better by looking at the cost of drugs. Private research never works as well as public research, it's just that simple.

And there's why private research is inferior in every way. Research is about looking for answers to noncommercial questions. Development is about economically-driven work. Private industry does development very well indeed - but it looks at the costs of basic research and baulks. That's why drug prices are so high and yet we don't have an effective anti-malarial drug or a new drug to fight resistant TB or a cheap anti-AIDS drug cocktail - because while they cost little to manufacture (just see how cheap tylenol is!), they cost billions to research and so the end consumer bites the bullet on the cost. End result - the more ill you are, the more you're expected to pay - and so Africa is suffering from an AIDS epidemic that beggars belief; TB hasn't been eradicated and resistant strains are popping up here, there and everywhere; Malaria still kills obscene numbers of people every year.

And as I pointed out earlier, the kind of private research you see in Japan is also next-to-useless; you get great flashy demos like ASIMO and QRIO, but no published data, no dialogue about techniques or results; and no net gain for the field of knowlege, so it's as if the research never happened - great swathes of resources, all swallowed up by a big black hole of corporate secrecy.

 

they only want to go "back" to the moon becuase the previos missions were fake and they don't want the chineez to beat them to the moon..

its so funny true or not

 

You're correct about the studies, but incorrect about their findings. In 1989 NASA commissioned the Chapman Research Group, an economic analysis firm, to conduct a study on the economic benefits of NASA spending. Their report, An Exploration of Benefits From NASA "Spinoff", concluded that every dollar spent on NASA results in an economic benefit to the United States of only about 10 cents. NASA hasn't commissioned any other economic return studies since, and with good reason; the figures have likely only gotten worse since 1989.

Bell Labs and the extensive Intel research facilities come immediately to mind as counter-examples.

 

The flaw in that study was the timeframe - it looked at the 1978 to 1986 period. Not the period from the beginning of the space programme through to the end of Apollo, nor the period where the shuttle was being designed and developed: but a period where the Shuttle was declared to be operational by the government. So you're effectively looking at a "dead spot" in NASA's history. And yet, despite this, that same study found that the Aeronautics section of NASA (which wasn't in a dead spot) was returning $4 for every $1 spent.

And that's just ignoring the way the study waves its hands and says "Oh, and it doesn't matter that the idea came about from work done by NASA, it would have happened anyway".
If I ever meet anyone who could actually work out if that was true, I know what I'll ask them - "What are next week's lottery numbers?".

Except that neither facility releases its research into the public domain, including things like Unix (the free versions come from Berkley, not AT&T, or from independent clones of the API).
End result - research proceeds exceptionally slowly or not at all. Same as for the Japanese corporate research programmes. Even the famed Xerox Palo Alto research lab saw lots of Intellectual Property arguments between researchers and suits looking to start development projects.

The thing to rememeber here is that research is inherently like herding cats. You may get some success, or at least the impression of it, but the moment a particularly nice-looking bowl of cream comes into view, the herd decides where it's going, regardless of where you're aiming them.

Happily for us, that's where most of our greatest advances come from. Remember, the most exciting phrase in research is not "Eureka!", it's "Hmmm. That's odd..."

 

I think there's good reason for human spaceflight.

What would earth be without it in, let's say: 50-60 years?

Think about it.

We'll all be munchin bread with some soup (if we're lucky to be still around)

And what about our planet? Still liveable? I don't think so,...

Make the right choise today, and we could even be alive in three- or even four hundred years; as it is with most neccesities: a long lifespan is better to travel to other planets and as is said before: invention is the mother of neccesity!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not kidding! The planet IS already doomed! I personally don't believe in the survivability of those modern societies as is.

They're too crowded, too poor and too sick.

Let me leave on a genaration starship to the next habitable planet plz!

 

The world doesn't have the quadrillion dollars to find the next habitable planet.

 

Who's looking for a habitable planet?