Obama Seeks to Ax Moon Mision

pfft, i cant believe you sandy, he is cutting several billion dollars from NASA and

INCREASING the military budget to A TRILLION DOLLARS,

Dont give this crap that he is cutting things that dont need money and hes saving money, hes throwing the military a trillion f*cking dollars!!.

just take 5 billion, not even a fraction of a percent of that and we can do so incredibly much.

The fact is that we will never have good ai, the difference between a human and a computer is a

computer has:

Yes and No

A human has:

Yes, No, and Maybe.

As someone whom knows how to program in python, I can tell you that that sums up the nigh insourmountible wall facing artificial intelligence.

All AI is today isnt really intelligent, we program them to respond to different situations, but they dont really think for themselves, if something unexpected happens, the robot will crash and burn, and depending on its build, it may literally do both.

AI is a silly waste of money, its like building the lunar base components before you have designed the rocket to take it there, before you even INTEND to build the rocket.

The problem with AI isnt going to be fixed with trying new programs, the problem literally goes as deep into the system as the very transisters it is built on.

the transisters are 1 and 0 gates, there is no maybe for a robot because the actual concept does not enter their build, and the problem is we have no idea how to fix that.

Heck, we cant even make a computer give us a random number (its a premade list of numbers it gives you, not 100% random) how can we make a robot with AI?


The fact is that we go to space, not because its expensive, not because it's innefficient, we go there because that is where our dreams and our future lie.

If we go back on that, if we go back on our destiny to climb the ladder of technology and discovery, than we are no better than those that lived in the Dark ages.


If we were down to every nickel and dime, than yes, cutting the budget of NASA is necessary.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO excuse to cut NASA's already pathetic budget and throw another trillion f*cking dollars at the military THAT CLEARLY doesnt need it.

Other countries arent even BOTHERING trying to beat the US, all they do is Guerilla warfare.

If you cut the military budget by 250 billion dollars, and spread it out, between all of the neglected parts of the government that could save us, absolutely nothing bad, and very likely something good will happen.

This country is so xenophobic that the they feel that the second we let down our super f*cking massive guns the whole world will rip us apart.


Only 30% of the reason why Im pissed off is because Obama cut the Nasa budget, the rest is the fact that he is giving the military a trillion f*cking dollars, and taking away from NASA's 14 billion, its a f*cking miracle that NASA can even afford to keep it's cafeteria's in operation let alone launch a god damn rocket.

It's stealing from the god damn poor and giving more to the rich whom will probably waste the living f*ck out of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good. Manned missions have--for now--accomplished all they can. It's not that I don't want to see humans up there (I'm pretty goddamned sure it's our only hope for survival beyond the next century), it's just that the money should be spent on (a) improving robotic / automated missions, (b) improving flight and take-off technologies and (c) getting a few good telescopes up there to spy deeper into the universe.

Note: as far as what I've read, no dollars will be cut. NASA's budget will actually go up by about $500 million to about $19 billion. Projects, especially the dumb ones, will be moved to the back-burner or canceled.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Robots are out of the question, they have absolutely lousy efficiency in that sort of environment.

They are worthless problem solver and the second one encounters an unexpected situation, you can kiss a few hundred million dollars down the drain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Riiight. I recall a few rovers doing a pretty good job on Mars.

The problem with your statement is that it assumes that the technology will not advance substantially in the next decade. The cost of sending a human being will be more than a trillion dollars. The cost of sending robots, several generations beyond what we have now, will be considerably less. Plus, the process will advance other crucial fields.

Look, you're talking to a guy who wants humans to go. Just not yet. Robots and automated devices first. The logic capabilities are increasing exponentially every few years. Let'em have a go.

~String

 

It is kind of ridiculous how we have to slash NASA's budget while still spending hundreds of billions in Iraq.. however it seems that the only way we are really going to colonize space is by cutting costs of space travel - and also by giving good reasons to travel to outer space. Anything you can do in outer space you can do on earth but cheaper. We need faster than light technology if space is to be at all attractive.

Besides, anything in space can be shot down by the Chinese
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm

 

Yes. And then their culture stagnated only to have the barbarians they once scorned take over the world and show up at their doorstep with gunships dictating terms.

I'm sorry, how can you argue that we need to cut NASA because we can't afford the 14 billion, and then say that the 800 billion spent on stimulus was not enough? Didn't Keynes famously say that the government could pay for guys to dig holes and fill them back up to stimulate the economy? This doesn't apply to money spent on NASA?

 

Rediculous in the face of handing trillions to banks and yet people can agree with this cut. I'm so fucking done with society, I've become extremely skewer from the direction the lazy masses want to go.

This is a far more dangerous decision than anyone in this thread thinks.

You take rocketry from the Oppenheimer's of the world and they make newer more nasty weapons.

 

Or they start to rely on their own ingenuity more than on the resources the system provides. This is the benefit of budget cuts - the system becomes more efficient through selection.

I wonder who the real barbarians were..
this is a good point though. Dreams of space exploration are important and they area fuel for creativity. If our economy fuels the space program then improving our economy is a noble goal. What does today's youth have to inspire them to excel in the sciences??

 

I can not believe we're cutting a running. NASA is important to our psyche.

 

And does what with it?

 

So...you think NASA is protecting us from invasions and that's a reason to fund them? Cause they're not. In any event almost all nations in the past eventually failed, including expansionist ones, like Mongols. You know what happened to them? The main force of them were absorbed into China, and China lived on. That siad, it would be foolish to claim that mongolian expansionism caused their downfall, just as it is foolish to claim that Chinese introspection caused theirs.

In any event, my point was that the notion of exploration as an pervasive and innate drive of mankind is not well established. It's mostly a western thing, which suggests it's cultural.

Keynes was not entirely serious in his example. That said Keynes was taking about paying an unemployed man who could not get a job elsewhere, not paying a highly skilled engineer that likely could. He would have conceded that some expenditures create more jobs than others, because some have a greater impact on aggregate demand.

I am not, however, in favor of additional spending myself unless it is very well targeted. The initial round was reasonably targets, but largely still undistributed, and there are other measures that I think need to be taken beforehand, like seriously re-evaluating the FDIC risk profiles for borrowers, as there are a number of banks that would like to lend money, but cannot due to a paucity of borrowers who meet the minimum guidelines.

Be clear though that you are right, to some extent balanced budgets are the enemy of Keynesian model of government intervention in a recession. A good Keynesian balances the budget in good times and runs deficits in bad times.

 

IMO if we stop funding NASA then I will take that as a sign of our decline. We have peaked and are on the way down. Shit, we probably spend more money on pampering toy poodles and other pets than NASA's budget.

*shakes head*

 

its not a matter of rel estate its a matter of pride. The USA will have to finally admit they aren't "#1" what ever that means.

Colonies it I would assume, mines it of water for fuel, He3 for fusion power, etc.

 

Bush had his 2nd hand 'Kennedy Moment' when he announced the USA would return to the Moon, while the assembled onlookers said 'Meh.'. It was a tired, flawed attempt to make Bush look like a visionary, but he knew he wouldn't be in power when the mission was due, knew he'd driven the USA's economy into the ground, and knew his successor was going to have to make the tough decision to shit can his stupid idea.

I applaud Obama for having the stones to can this project. There is no value in it.

 

FOR THE LAST TIME: NASA'S BUDGET IS NOT SLASHED.

It hasn't been cut, nor will it be cut by a single DIME!

"Missions" are cut (moon, new shuttle), but the dollars to the agency are not being cut. The agency gets about $18 billion now. It will go to about $19 billion next year.

~String

 

I'm pretty sure legally a country can't claim the moon

 

Its not a matter of legally claiming the moon, its a matter of being there.

 

Spoken by one who obviously has a very limited view about computers and AI.

For example, not all computers are digital as you seem to be falsely assuming (or analogue if you still remember them). The neural network* type does not even need to be programmed so is not limited to the set of possibilities that a human programmer can anticipate. I.e. it can learn from experience. In several fields they were already out performing humans 20 years ago!

To name one: The evaluation of loan applications.

Deciding if it will be profitable for a bank to grant an applicant’s loan request. The neural network machine learned on the history of the banks old loans (The old application data and if loan was paid on time or not or even defaulted.) - Much too much data for a human to digest and utilize.

Humans are very subjective in granting loans - often influenced by the applicant's smile (or short skirt) etc. and their biases (like against Jews, resident of poor neighborhoods, or Negros etc.) The neural network learned to more accurately evaluate who would pay on time than the human evaluators.

Again it is not even programmed and considers ALL the factors with the appropriate weight of each. (The human does not know how to rationally weigh them.) BTW, most neural networks are implemented in digital machines, which are cheaper than a hardware neural network machine – they are only used when the digital machine is too slow.

Again you have a very limited understanding of the range of computer types or the superior performance AI has already achieved in limited fields. Humans are more flexible problem solvers, but have very expensive requirements in space (food, water, no extreme cold, etc. plus “man rated” rockets that cost at least 10 times more) If you have a well defined task, like exploring surface of Mars, the robot is at least 10,000 times cheaper. BTW, NASA has given up on re establishing communications with one of the Mars explorer robots – it lasted years longer than expected.

SUMMARY: I favor exploration of space. I just don't want to be stupid about how it is done - sending men instead of robots at >10,000 times the cost.

------------------
* I ceased following neural network theory and practice about 20 years ago. I never like the name as they have nothing to do with neurons. They should be called "connection machines" as that is what they are. At least three "layers." The first is for the data input and last for the weighted output answer or reduced to a binary answer (yes/no) if that is desired. The weight or strength of the interconnections between the layers is what changes as the machine learns its task(s).

PS as I was leaving the field, it was prooved that a three layer machine can do anything a machine with more layers can so I think only three layer machines are used.

 

Motors, a modem and a few parts put together and a computer that was told to stop if it came across a rock.

It did an amazing job staying together, but it's not artificial intelligence, actually programming and designing a vehicle to drive, take videos and other readings is rather easy compared to the task of making AI

Yah but none of those robots could have wrecked the entire mission if they came across some wierd situation, all of them were controlled by humans.

My problem isnt with the efforts to program, it is with the circuits themselves, the semi conducters specifically, we need to invent a new system other than superconducters to make robots "think" because right now, all they are doing is mimicking us, they are not actually "thinking."

No they really are not, we give them a library of things to do if faced with a certain situation, I would know. It's just that every year we add more and more stuff to the library, were not making intelligent robots, it's "AI" ARTIFICIAL intelligence, it means that we give them the answers to every problem they face.

we give robots the answer to every situation they will face, the problem is the second something happens that we didnt give em, we are all screwed.