Space Shuttle Launch from a Plane

[MMATycoon]

You can't have a Bugatti Veyron if you never invented the car, followed by about 100 years of developing it.

[GripGambler]

You keep concentrating on huge numbers of people... You aren't getting it. We aren't talking about continuing current civilization in space, we are talking about preserving the human race. This can be achieved by as little as a few hundred people with proper provisions. Just because it can't be done with current technology doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to get there, even if it does take 1000 years. Who knows how many useful inventions will come out of the process as well. Some of the greatest inventions have been accidents while trying to do something else. Like post-it notes (and lesser things like the light bulb).

 

I like how you link wanting to advance technology with not valuing human life. Even if every bit of war/defense/research money was devoted to feeding people, we would never be able to feed everyone. Nor would we be fixing the problem or creating a long term solution, but rather creating a bigger problem where people begin to rely on the government for food (more so than do already). I guess none of us value human life because we use the internet, have non-necessities, and free time when we could devote all of our extra income to food for the homeless and spend all of our extra time building shelters and handing out food. Extremes don't work, it takes a balance.

 

If all governments of the past ran by the theory of feeding before advancing, we would still be living in huts surrounding a castle.

[Guest]

Why not think about it for a bit? It's crazy how far back you have to set yourself.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying we could've had all that without the US spending the value of 800 billion dollars on NASA. The Russians launched the first satellite into space before the US even had a space program. The GPS system was developed by commercial companies, universities and the US army. When it comes to information and telecommunication we mostly rely on radio and wired networks, we don't need satellites. There's also no need for a space program to research artificial meat. There's no need to launch stuff into space to get to scratch-free lenses or invisible braces. The important research on particle physics is also not done by NASA.

 

NASA's primary objective is space exploration. NASA stated that their ultimate goal is space colonization, although even they admit that at this point it's barely conceivable. How much money does NASA need to spend on exploring mars to confirm that the planet isn't beneficial to us? And if you're going to bring up the accidental usefulness of space technology to our soceity than were would we have been if the same resources were spent on porpuseful research in these fields? Why don't do it the other way around? Why don't we put some money in research of actual problems and then apply that technology to space colonization when there's a need for it?

 

There are NASA projects I support, but a lot of the time the input outweighs the output.

[Guest]

You keep concentrating on huge numbers of people... You aren't getting it. We aren't talking about continuing current civilization in space, we are talking about preserving the human race. This can be achieved by as little as a few hundred people with proper provisions.

One trait of provisions is that they run out. When NASA calls space colonies barely conceivable they are talking about colonies on other planets supported by earths resources. You are talking about maintaining an artificial self supporting ecological system in space, as there are no habitable planets nearby. I think that's a bit laughable as we're currently not managing just that on a firtile planet. If that's your goal than it's necessary to find a way to reduce a human's ecological footprint to zero. Now that's good research and there's really no need to launch anything into space for that.

[Guest]

You keep concentrating on huge numbers of people... You aren't getting it. We aren't talking about continuing current civilization in space, we are talking about preserving the human race. This can be achieved by as little as a few hundred people with proper provisions. Just because it can't be done with current technology doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to get there, even if it does take 1000 years. Who knows how many useful inventions will come out of the process as well. Some of the greatest inventions have been accidents while trying to do something else. Like post-it notes (and lesser things like the light bulb).

 

I like how you link wanting to advance technology with not valuing human life. Even if every bit of war/defense/research money was devoted to feeding people, we would never be able to feed everyone. Nor would we be fixing the problem or creating a long term solution, but rather creating a bigger problem where people begin to rely on the government for food (more so than do already). I guess none of us value human life because we use the internet, have non-necessities, and free time when we could devote all of our extra income to food for the homeless and spend all of our extra time building shelters and handing out food. Extremes don't work, it takes a balance.

 

If all governments of the past ran by the theory of feeding before advancing, we would still be living in huts surrounding a castle.

 

 

you aren't getting it

 

 

with the money we are wasting, we can preserve the human race right where we are, hell we can preserve where we are too!!!!!!!!!!! There is a time for everything, and right now the time is for fixing what we have done, so we can move forward. Are you part of the throw away generation? From the way you talk we are fucked and we need this technology now so at least you can get on a shuttle and GTFO.

[HumanGoing]

I think both of you are arguing positions that are not really valid.

 

You keep concentrating on huge numbers of people... You aren't getting it. We aren't talking about continuing current civilization in space, we are talking about preserving the human race. This can be achieved by as little as a few hundred people with proper provisions. Just because it can't be done with current technology doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to get there, even if it does take 1000 years. Who knows how many useful inventions will come out of the process as well. Some of the greatest inventions have been accidents while trying to do something else. Like post-it notes (and lesser things like the light bulb).

 

I like how you link wanting to advance technology with not valuing human life. Even if every bit of war/defense/research money was devoted to feeding people, we would never be able to feed everyone. Nor would we be fixing the problem or creating a long term solution, but rather creating a bigger problem where people begin to rely on the government for food (more so than do already). I guess none of us value human life because we use the internet, have non-necessities, and free time when we could devote all of our extra income to food for the homeless and spend all of our extra time building shelters and handing out food. Extremes don't work, it takes a balance.

 

If all governments of the past ran by the theory of feeding before advancing, we would still be living in huts surrounding a castle.

 

This is an oversimplification and the basic premise is false. There is already enough food produced on the planet to feed everyone. The cost of feeding everyone in the United States would not cost anywhere near all the money that is currently spent on war and "defense." Food shortage problems are complex economic issues with a big factor being war itself. Even deeper than that, most so-called "third world" nations have been coerced by various methods (usual colonial or post-colonial policies) to adopt monoculture food production policies for trade in the world market in favour of policies that aim to produce food to feed their domestic population (which instead must be purchased on the world market). And even just talking domestically, it's not like the only two possibilities are the current situation of extreme disparity or a situation where "everyone relies on the government."

 

Also, it is precisely because human's developed the ability to produce food surpluses that civilization advanced at all. It is because we started producing more food than we could consume that any complex societies developed because it allowed for human's to devote their own labour to activities beyond feeding themselves. It is from food surpluses that complex societies develop. Even societies with castles and huts were maintained largely on food surpluses, it's just that the food surplus itself was controlled by the person in the castle and not by the people whose labour produced it (the serfs and peasants).

 

you aren't getting it

 

 

with the money we are wasting, we can preserve the human race right where we are, hell we can preserve where we are too!!!!!!!!!!! There is a time for everything, and right now the time is for fixing what we have done, so we can move forward. Are you part of the throw away generation? From the way you talk we are fucked and we need this technology now so at least you can get on a shuttle and GTFO.

 

Your entire argument is based on this notion of wasting money. I would be curious to know if you actually looked into how much NASA actually costs for the American taxpayer. I have, however, looked into this. For every one dollar an American spends, only one half of a cent goes to NASA, which in reality is a very small amount. Especially when compared to other major budget expenses (like on the military, for example). The point I'm trying to make is that cutting the spending to NASA would not actually help solve any of the problems you seem to think it could. The research and development that has come out of NASA has been extremely valuable and ended up creating more wealth overall (think of satellites, how much have they helped to businesses of every kind earn more money?). In fact, it is even possible to feed everyone and work towards sustainable development and keep NASA and the space program going.

[Guest]

Your entire argument is based on this notion of wasting money. I would be curious to know if you actually looked into how much NASA actually costs for the American taxpayer. I have, however, looked into this. For every one dollar an American spends, only one half of a cent goes to NASA, which in reality is a very small amount.

You mean for every dollar an American pays in taxes. Maybe that's peanuts to the defense budget, but it's certaily not a small amount. That's still one third of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. There are about 50 countries in the world with a lower federal budget than what the US spends each year on their space program. The point is that the money is better spent elsewhere, even within the field of academic research.

 

(think of satellites, how much have they helped to businesses of every kind earn more money?)

Why don't you tell us?

[Guest]

I think both of you are arguing positions that are not really valid.

 

 

 

This is an oversimplification and the basic premise is false. There is already enough food produced on the planet to feed everyone. The cost of feeding everyone in the United States would not cost anywhere near all the money that is currently spent on war and "defense." Food shortage problems are complex economic issues with a big factor being war itself. Even deeper than that, most so-called "third world" nations have been coerced by various methods (usual colonial or post-colonial policies) to adopt monoculture food production policies for trade in the world market in favour of policies that aim to produce food to feed their domestic population (which instead must be purchased on the world market). And even just talking domestically, it's not like the only two possibilities are the current situation of extreme disparity or a situation where "everyone relies on the government."

 

Also, it is precisely because human's developed the ability to produce food surpluses that civilization advanced at all. It is because we started producing more food than we could consume that any complex societies developed because it allowed for human's to devote their own labour to activities beyond feeding themselves. It is from food surpluses that complex societies develop. Even societies with castles and huts were maintained largely on food surpluses, it's just that the food surplus itself was controlled by the person in the castle and not by the people whose labour produced it (the serfs and peasants).

 

 

 

Your entire argument is based on this notion of wasting money. I would be curious to know if you actually looked into how much NASA actually costs for the American taxpayer. I have, however, looked into this. For every one dollar an American spends, only one half of a cent goes to NASA, which in reality is a very small amount. Especially when compared to other major budget expenses (like on the military, for example). The point I'm trying to make is that cutting the spending to NASA would not actually help solve any of the problems you seem to think it could. The research and development that has come out of NASA has been extremely valuable and ended up creating more wealth overall (think of satellites, how much have they helped to businesses of every kind earn more money?). In fact, it is even possible to feed everyone and work towards sustainable development and keep NASA and the space program going.

 

 

with the funds that were saved, and yes it would take litigation and a lot of bullshit, but if you could get all that money put into education food and housing, the world would be a better place. If the US didn't try to play world police, maybe we wouldn't have people that hate us, and then all we have to deal with is our own peole that hate us. But if we make sure everyone is fed and housed and educated, why on earth would they hate a government that helped them achieve personal stability? The war in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost more money than it would to feed clothe and house every homeless person in the US. When you think about how much we throw away, it makes me cry. Companies started locking their dumpsters so homeless people cant even eat food that has been thrown away. They would rather feed the landfills than a starving person. I say we need to change how people look at their fellow human beings, because they are just as important as you are.

[GripGambler]

One trait of provisions is that they run out. When NASA calls space colonies barely conceivable they are talking about colonies on other planets supported by earths resources. You are talking about maintaining an artificial self supporting ecological system in space, as there are no habitable planets nearby. I think that's a bit laughable as we're currently not managing just that on a firtile planet. If that's your goal than it's necessary to find a way to reduce a human's ecological footprint to zero. Now that's good research and there's really no need to launch anything into space for that.

 

 

 

Far too many assumptions are being made here. Your first mistake is the assumption of it happening based on the use of a current theory. You are also assuming that by provisions I meant supply caches, when I was actually referring to planning and preparations. The lack of a habitable planet is also based on the assumption of current technology and theory. Just because we can't walk on another planet and breath its air doesn't mean in the future we won't have the technology to adapt to it by some form of artificial assistance or etc..

[Guest]

Far too many assumptions are being made here. Your first mistake is the assumption of it happening based on the use of a current theory. You are also assuming that by provisions I meant supply caches, when I was actually referring to planning and preparations. The lack of a habitable planet is also based on the assumption of current technology and theory. Just because we can't walk on another planet and breath its air doesn't mean in the future we won't have the technology to adapt to it by some form of artificial assistance or etc..

 

 

dude, seriously, do you long to be somewhere else? Maybe you should move to another city/country and try life on for size. We have a whole planet here that just so happens to support our life. It provides everything we need and always has. But for some reason you don't want or care for that, and need to move on and live in space?

[Guest]

Far too many assumptions are being made here. Your first mistake is the assumption of it happening based on the use of a current theory. You are also assuming that by provisions I meant supply caches, when I was actually referring to planning and preparations. The lack of a habitable planet is also based on the assumption of current technology and theory. Just because we can't walk on another planet and breath its air doesn't mean in the future we won't have the technology to adapt to it by some form of artificial assistance or etc..

I wish you were just as critical on your own statements. I feel like debating a creationist who tells me that I'm making a mistake of assuming that there's no God. The shoe is on the other foot. In actuallity the more we know about life vs space, the less reason there is to think that it possible. That even if it's possible there's a good chance we'll never find how. That even if we find how we might no be able to put it into practice. If you're going to assume the contrary than you'll need to justify your believe and you can't.

[GripGambler]

dude, seriously, do you long to be somewhere else? Maybe you should move to another city/country and try life on for size. We have a whole planet here that just so happens to support our life. It provides everything we need and always has. But for some reason you don't want or care for that, and need to move on and live in space?

 

Since I have stated multiple times that it is a measure to preserve human life post apocalyptic scenario, I fail to see how you have drawn any of these conclusions about my opinions.

 

 

I wish you were just as critical on your own statements. I feel like debating a creationist who tells me that I'm making a mistake of assuming that there's no God. The shoe is on the other foot. In actuallity the more we know about life vs space, the less reason there is to think that it possible. That even if it's possible there's a good chance we'll never find how. That even if we find how we might no be able to put it into practice. If you're going to assume the contrary than you'll need to justify your believe and you can't.

 

Strange, I see it the opposite. Creationists claim to know the facts, which is your standpoint... claiming to know the facts. I am merely stating that we don't know and therefore shouldn't stop the search. This mentality is in direct contradiction to creationist mentality. All of your assumptions even in this post are entirely baseless with no possible way to calculate the certainty of. "there's a good chance we'll never find how".. just a completely merit-less statement. My assumptions aren't contrary to these statements, rather my assumption is that we will never find out if we don't try, therefore nothing is necessary to justify.

[HumanGoing]

You mean for every dollar an American pays in taxes. Maybe that's peanuts to the defense budget, but it's certaily not a small amount. That's still one third of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. There are about 50 countries in the world with a lower federal budget than what the US spends each year on their space program. The point is that the money is better spent elsewhere, even within the field of academic research.

 

 

Why don't you tell us?

 

I see what you are saying, but it still does not contradict the overall point I was trying to make. Yes, I did mean for every tax dollar, and yes that does work out to a large amount (although, relatively minuscule compared to the other major budgetary expenses). I agree that, overall, money could be better spent, but that doesn't change the fact that it is within the realm of possibilities to deal with the social problems DIDM is concerned with and maintain a well funded space program. You also mention another point that I also agree with but is kind of a separate issue and that is the issue of academic research in general. It's a reality that in North America, and now the UK, that academic research is underfunded (a problem that is in fact worsening at an alarming pace). This however is more of an ideological issue over neo-liberal funding policies. In fact, this problem could also be addressed along with DIDM's while keeping a well funded space program. However, the ideological resistance to the types of reforms these would be is far too powerful in most industrialized nations for this to occur. This is the real problem, not the existence of NASA itself.

 

And as for how satellites have improved earnings for multiple businesses, that really is a straight forward point. Not only has the ease of instant communication that satellites provide completely revolutionized how stocks and finances are traded, but the internet itself as we know it is dependent on a satellite infrastructure. Satellite communication is responsible for both: creating new types of markets and businesses for capital to be invested in (and profit earned from); and for expanding the profit earning potential of many existing businesses if for no other reason than for increasing the ease of instant communication and information exchange. Whether one sees this as innately a bad thing or a good thing is beside the point, the fact remains that satellite technology is essential in the current functioning of capitalist economies and they make possible huge sources of revenue both directly and indirectly.

[Guest]

@ GribGambler

 

Space travel is not an option in any doomsday scenario. That's a fact. It might be in the future. That's an assumption. As far as I'm concerned God might come down and save all children of the Arian race. If we pray enough he might even save the rest of us. If we don't try we'll never know. I'm sorry for assuming that he won't.

 

@ HumanGoing

 

I didn't know about satellites being used for stock trade. You don't think we could do the same with other technology? How is the internet dependend on satellites?

[GripGambler]

Sorry, I have to nitpick here. "It might be in the future" is not an assumption. An assumption would be "It will be in the future". The use of the word "might" in this context keeps it from being an assumption.

[Guest]

Sorry, I have to nitpick here. "It might be in the future" is not an assumption. An assumption would be "It will be in the future". The use of the word "might" in this context keeps it from being an assumption.

 

 

you are assuming there will be some other doomsday scenario besides humans destroying ourselves. if we work on ourselves then we won't have to worry about these dommsdays you dream of.

[HumanGoing]

I didn't know about satellites being used for stock trade. You don't think we could do the same with other technology? How is the internet dependend on satellites?

 

Actually, stock and financial trading used to rely on the telegraph infrastructure and technologies like the stock ticker patented by Thomas Edison, but this is no longer the case. Satellite technology allows for even quicker communication between more remote places (not just limited to telegraph stations). The modern financial markets as well as stock trading relies heavily on instant communication between every region of the planet, which is dependent on satellite technology. This is only one example, but there are several. All mobile technology relies on satellites as well as anything that uses any form of GPS technology. I never said that this could not be done with some other technology, but whatever that hypothetical technology may be is beside the point because it doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out that the technology developed to launch orbiting satellites and communicate with them has lead to the expansion of markets and profit earning potentials in many ways. An argument solely focusing on the upfront cost of funding NASA as a "waste of money" is failing to appreciate how great an impact the technologies that the Space Program helped develop have had in the functioning of modern society.

[GripGambler]

Actually, doomsday is a fact. The "when" is the unknown. It may very well be after we destroy ourselves, but the Earth will eventually cease to provide for life.

[Guest]

All mobile technology relies on satellites as well as anything that uses any form of GPS technology. I never said that this could not be done with some other technology, but whatever that hypothetical technology may be is beside the point because it doesn't exist.

Almost none of telecommunication goes via satellite. Mobile phones don't require satellites and neither does the internet. Both make use of radio or wired networks. You can access the internet via satellite, but just like Wi-Fi it connects to the same wired network everybody else uses. Cables have a lot bigger data carrying capacity and have a lot less latency. So it's safe to say that you don't require satellites for stock exchange either.

 

The most important satellite applications that I can think of are for navigation and weather forecasting. They are very important, but in no way as vital as everybody makes them out to be.

 

@GripGambler

 

Sure, using "might" in each sentence makes everything you say foolproof, but those are my words.

Space travel is the only possibility of saving the human race in any number of doomsday scenarios.

Charlie Sheen will break the world record 100m sprint in any number of olympic scenarios. Dare to put this statement into question and I'll blame you for making assumptions.

[MMATycoon]

Dare to put this statement into question and I'll blame you for making assumptions.

 

I would imagine he's talking about the sun having a finite life, so if we wanted to keep going we'd have to travel to other solar systems. It's about 1bn years before our sun starts to become a red giant, which will make earth uninhabitable.

[Guest]

ZOMYGOD

 

at some point in time this thing we live on will die, so will our source of heat and light. Is there anything that points to the fact that humans will even be around then? Do you not think that in a million years humans may evolve a bit? Maybe by then we can use all of our brain, and telaport places. Maybe we will have wings and be able to breathe in space by then. Maybe the human race will have gone extinct by then for natural reasons. Maybe dinosaurs will come back to life and we can ride them into the future. Maybe while we sleep a giant meteor will be stopped by Bruce Willis and Armageddon will all be a big misunderstanding, it didn't mean the end of time, just a really bad movie.

[MMATycoon]

All very entertaining but Steeve asked for a doomsday certainty and I posted one. Obviously there are plenty of non-certain but very likely doomsdays that will probably happen before that.

[Guest]

why do we have to plan for a doomsday when Jesus is going to come swooping in on a luckdragon and save the souls of the righteous and banish all us fun havers to hell.

 

or maybe it was a raptor

 

http://bobhockey.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jesus_riding_dinosaur1.jpg

[Guest]

I would imagine he's talking about the sun having a finite life, so if we wanted to keep going we'd have to travel to other solar systems. It's about 1bn years before our sun starts to become a red giant, which will make earth uninhabitable.

Sure, so for the next 900 million let's we focus our research current on problems like decreasing our ecological footprint, energy efficiency and health. The technology gained from such research will help us with space colonization (if possible at all) more than it would vice versa. Just look at what NASA accomplishes with a budget of 15 billion and compare that to what several universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Columbia, Berkeley and Cambridge accomplish with a budget of around 1 billion. The discovery or invention of DNA sequencing, insuline, defibrillators, pacemakers, kidney transplantation, artificial skin, the laser, nuclear magnetic resonance, embriotic stem cells or even Google just to name a few. The technology provided by such universities to NASA greatly exceeds the technology NASA provides to us.

[Guest]

anyways, most ANYTHING worth a damn is run by the private sector. Governments are as good at spending money as illiterate people are at spelling. Why do you think there has been a decline in people looking for public office, and an increase in executive positions in corporations? Being CEO of a major corp is now looked at higher than a congressman. The damn congressmen bow down to these executives.

 

Gone are the days when companies needed an in with politics, and here are the days when politicians need a company to fund/back them to get into office.