Space programs and their support among the population [W:91]

Rainman05 · Jan 9, 2013

MMC said:
It's not that I don't mind working with them so much. But I just think the US should lead the Way. :2usflag:

There really isn't another nation that currently can. The US is the only who has in place the funding, the academia and the infrastructure to take the main role. In fact, the only opposition the US is facing in this regard, is from within the US itself -> the congress and partisanship.

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
What HAS actually happened during NASA's primary function, space travel? Nothing. That's what. Cool pictures though :2razz:

Hmm, hundreds of sattillites hanging in space that help with tons of things down here on Earth. Been to the moon a few times which shows that it is possible and that we can go further. May not seem like much to you. But it does show the potential that is out there that can help mankind. And all those pictures that you scoff at as being nothing more than pretty pictures, helps us understand how things work, which in turn helps us focus on directions to go for development.

MarineTpartier said:
I'll use a football analogy. If you have a quarterback who leads his team mates, ensures everyone on the offense is set correctly, stays after practice working with receivers, and makes sure players are respectful of coaches but can't throw the football, what happens to that quarterback? He goes away. Sure, all of that other stuff is nice but someone else that actually performs their job could do it just as well. NASA needs to go away. The only useful function they perform is satellite tracking and maintenance and Space X is showing the capability to even do that.

The problem here is that Space X (along with any other private company) will never do everything that needs to be done. They will only focus on things that will make them money or has the greatest potential to make them money. You can have all the quarter backs you want in that football team of yours, but it will all be for nothing if the Coach doesn't do what needs to be done first. Tell me, do you really think that a company is going to spend the money to watch for, plan for, NEO's?

MMC · Jan 9, 2013

Rainman05 said:
There really isn't another nation that currently can. The US is the only who has in place the funding, the academia and the infrastructure to take the main role. In fact, the only opposition the US is facing in this regard, is from within the US itself -> the congress and partisanship.

I believe the Russians have been dealing with the Space Station and they have been working with their Advanced plane X-47 which is an updated version of their 37. That will be able to break orbit and Drop out of Orbit as well. Not to mention if you recall they are putting up a space motel. That's why I put that piece up.

Henrin · Jan 9, 2013

I don't happen to see the point in the entire venture. If people wish to explore the universe more power to them and I hope them the best but there is better things to do.

As for the military aspect of it which some people have mentioned, I can't even fathom how that is beneficial to the people.

MMC · Jan 9, 2013

Did someone say we would have to wait until we brought something back from like say Mars?

A 2 billion year old Martian rock appears to have at one time been full of water from the surface of the Red Planet.

"Here we have a piece of Mars that I can hold in my hands. That's really exciting," Carl Agee, director of the Institute of Meteoritics and curator at the University of New Mexico, told the Associated Press.

Agee led a team of scientists who published their report on the newly discovered meteorite, nicknamed Black Beauty, in the journal Science. The rock is estimated to have contained 6,000 parts per million water, and scientists believe it likely interacted with water at a time when most of the planet’s surface was believed to have been arid.

The baseball-size rock was discovered in the Sahara, and scientists say it contains more evidence of water than any of the other known Martian rock samples.....snip~

Scientists say ancient Martian rock was full of water | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

Rainman05 · Jan 9, 2013

MMC said:
I believe the Russians have been dealing with the Space Station and they have been working with their Advanced plane X-47 which is an updated version of their 37. That will be able to break orbit and Drop out of Orbit as well. Not to mention if you recall they are putting up a space motel. That's why I put that piece up.

Yes, but Roscosmos has aprox 3.8bil $ budget. NASA has 16bil $. The ESA has about 4.2bil $... or euros. So NASA has the biggest budget by a longshot. Therefore, it is the only one that can, atm, be the spearhead in space exploration. I cannot say what budget the chinese have for their agency since I cannot find that information in an accurate manner.

However, I see no reason why cooperation cannot exist. It is not a matter of governments doing powerplays in this matter. It is about pooling resources for a common benefit.

MMC · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

wolfman24 said:
You said that the bridge to nowhere was worthless. Just reminding you who authorized it.

Oh, well thanks for the public service :roll:

The Mark · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
Typical arguments from all. Here's a question that none of you can answer. What has NASA discovered while galavanting about space that has positively impacted the human race? I don't want to hear about the offspring of their work to get to space, I don't want to hear about the products they have produced. These are all things, IMO, that could have been discovered and marketed without the actual trip to space occuring and without a NASA existing to begin with. NASA, at this point, should be relegated to satellite tracking as its sole purpose. That is a relevant program that they manage and should manage. Trips to Mars do nothing for us here. NASA is a nice to have program that should be cut (minus satellite management) until we can get our fiscal house in order. The fact of the matter is that all we have gained from the actual space trips conducted is some "ooo ahh" pictures and that's about it. This isn't the first time I've posted this and most of you were a part of that discussion as well.

All of you can throw around the anti-science tag all you want and it won't stick. You won't find any proof of me saying anything against science. You can keep your bigotted and discriminatory opinion of "well, his username says Tea Partier so he must be anti science". I am anti-waste. The military, as it is currently spending, is a waste. But I would offer that it is much more useful than researching Mars. Most foreign aid is a waste. But I would offer that it is much more useful than researching Mars. Medicare/aid are not solvent programs. They are definitely more useful that researching Mars. Mars doesn't matter to people who see a 16 tril debt crushing our economy, among other things. Mars doesn't matter to people driving down rutted up, pothole covered interstates. Mars doesn't matter to people that are having their taxes raised to pay for "Obamacare" as it's called. These are all things that the $17.8 billion they received last year could've helped out with.House-Senate agreement would give NASA $17.8 billion in 2012 « Space Politics

As I see things, it matters not whether NASA's programs discover a million or zero new things we can use - the exploration and (eventual) exploitation/colonization is the main and most important task/goal as I see it.

Hell, if the guy in that video earlier is right, grand and inspiring missions/tasks invigorate the people of our nation (the US in my case) - inspire them to innovate and the like...that in and of itself seems a good thing.

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
Hmm, hundreds of sattillites hanging in space that help with tons of things down here on Earth. Been to the moon a few times which shows that it is possible and that we can go further. May not seem like much to you. But it does show the potential that is out there that can help mankind. And all those pictures that you scoff at as being nothing more than pretty pictures, helps us understand how things work, which in turn helps us focus on directions to go for development.

So, let me get this straight. It's okay for you to deal in the hypothetical (potential that is out there, nothing actually useful yet) but not okay for me to (someone else would have invented all of the stuff NASA did eventually anyway)? Gotcha. How about this for a discovery. Lets see if we can balance the budget and stop running deficits. I think that would be a bigger feat that putting a man on Mars. I would use the moon but we've already done that. I am a function kind of guy. Sure, getting to the moon was cool so we could rub it in Russia's face. But what function did it serve to improve? Nothing. We need substance not moral victories

Kal'Stang said:
The problem here is that Space X (along with any other private company) will never do everything that needs to be done. They will only focus on things that will make them money or has the greatest potential to make them money. You can have all the quarter backs you want in that football team of yours, but it will all be for nothing if the Coach doesn't do what needs to be done first. Tell me, do you really think that a company is going to spend the money to watch for, plan for, NEO's?

Yes I do, if the US gov't tells them they will pay them for it. Have you not seen some of the reality shows on TV? There is always someone that will do something for money in this world. I stated earlier (to another user I believe) that the private industry has a ways to go before we could turn everything over to them.

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

The Mark said:
As I see things, it matters not whether NASA's programs discover a million or zero new things we can use - the exploration and (eventual) exploitation/colonization is the main and most important task/goal as I see it.

Colonization is a farce. It will never happen minus on the small scale like the ISS. For one, the US alone has too many fat people to be able to withstand the trip up lol. We could use that money to improve life here. That would be a far better use of our tax payer dollars.

The Mark said:
Hell, if the guy in that video earlier is right, grand and inspiring missions/tasks invigorate the people of our nation (the US in my case) - inspire them to innovate and the like...that in and of itself seems a good thing.

The Space Program hasn't invigorated anything minus the race to the moon in the 60's and Star Wars in the 80's. Oh, and a few kids say they want to be an astronaut but end up working at Mickey D's.

The Mark · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
Colonization is a farce. It will never happen minus on the small scale like the ISS. For one, the US alone has too many fat people to be able to withstand the trip up lol. We could use that money to improve life here. That would be a far better use of our tax payer dollars.

I don't mean now, I mean later. Exploitation is now.

MarineTpartier said:
The Space Program hasn't invigorated anything minus the race to the moon in the 60's and Star Wars in the 80's. Oh, and a few kids say they want to be an astronaut but end up working at Mickey D's.

That's because NASA hasn't done anything that grabs a person and drags them into caring.

Oh look, another robot is going to mars. Look at the pretty pictures.

Hey, some telescope somewhere took these pictures.

Hmm, some scientists theorize that this planet X-many LY away might have life forms.

I mean, those things are cool, don't get me wrong.

But they aren't....EPIC.

Henrin · Jan 9, 2013

The problem with this topic is that it becomes apparent quickly that it is really all about dreams. Its all about this nonsense of visiting other planets, colonization, and all this other scifi nonsense. None of this stuff is realistic and none of it serves any purpose.

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

The Mark said:
I don't mean now, I mean later. Exploitation is now.

Exploitation of what though? There are no resources to use. There isn't anything useful in space.

The Mark said:
That's because NASA hasn't done anything that grabs a person and drags them into caring.
Oh look, another robot is going to mars. Look at the pretty pictures.
Hey, some telescope somewhere took these pictures.
Hmm, some scientists theorize that this planet X-many LY away might have life forms.
I mean, those things are cool, don't get me wrong.
But they aren't....EPIC.

EPIC doesn't pay the bills.

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

Henrin said:
The problem with this topic is that it becomes apparent quickly that it is really all about dreams. Its all about this nonsense of visiting other planets, colonization, and all this other scifi nonsense. None of this stuff is realistic and none of it serves any purpose.

Exactly bro. It's all hypothetical. It's all "well, if we just go a little further..." Like I said earlier, if we were in good standing debt/deficit wise and the world was relatively peaceful (I know we'll never have world peace) then I wouldn't have an issue with the space program. However, I think a more impressive feat would be to balance the budget, get entitlements in order, stop useless foreign spending, etc. Those all seem less likely to happen than putting a colony on Mars lol.

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
So, let me get this straight. It's okay for you to deal in the hypothetical (potential that is out there, nothing actually useful yet) but not okay for me to (someone else would have invented all of the stuff NASA did eventually anyway)? Gotcha. How about this for a discovery. Lets see if we can balance the budget and stop running deficits. I think that would be a bigger feat that putting a man on Mars. I would use the moon but we've already done that. I am a function kind of guy. Sure, getting to the moon was cool so we could rub it in Russia's face. But what function did it serve to improve? Nothing. We need substance not moral victories

1: The difference is I'm dealing with the future. You're dealing with the past and what has already happened. BIG difference.

2: NASA got 18.7 billion last year. Their budget got cut for this year. How much did the Military spend last year? How much did entitlement programs cost? Point being that the amount of money that NASA gets is a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of government programs on a one on one bases. Why would you want to stop a program that has given so much to society on so little a budget? NASA is the only government program that hasn't run in the red. I don't know, maybe i'm missing something but it sure seems to me that getting rid of a program that actually produces while keeping programs that don't seems awefully counter productive to me.

3: There's plenty of substance. You just refuse to see it.

MarineTpartier said:
Yes I do, if the US gov't tells them they will pay them for it. Have you not seen some of the reality shows on TV? There is always someone that will do something for money in this world. I stated earlier (to another user I believe) that the private industry has a ways to go before we could turn everything over to them.

Wait...what is the difference between the government giving private corporations money to do something vs the government just doing it itself when it comes to saving money? And really, so what if the government gives money to encourage the private corporations to do something...more often than not it often takes more than what the government gives for the private corporation to accomplish something. Which means no profit. Which means the private corporation will just tell the government no. And if the government gives enough to make a profit to the corporation then government money will be wasted as it will cost more than what it would take for the government to do it itself. Especially when it comes to something like finding NEO's.

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

Henrin said:
The problem with this topic is that it becomes apparent quickly that it is really all about dreams. Its all about this nonsense of visiting other planets, colonization, and all this other scifi nonsense. None of this stuff is realistic and none of it serves any purpose.

If people never dreamed then we would still be living in caves. As Albert Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge". Can you figure out why he, a man of science, said that?

Oh and fyi..people once considered flying nonsense also. Yet now millions of people do it every single year and we've been to the moon. So much for nonsense huh?

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
Exploitation of what though? There are no resources to use. There isn't anything useful in space.

:shock: :blink: The same resources that are on this planet are on other planets also. You seem to forget that other planets are made from the same things that this planet is made from. Some planets may lack some things yes, but to claim that there are no resources on other planets? That is just a WOW moment.

MarineTpartier said:
EPIC doesn't pay the bills.

And yet for every dollar that NASA spends the US economy recieves $8. What other government program do you know of that does that?

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
1: The difference is I'm dealing with the future. You're dealing with the past and what has already happened. BIG difference.

Oh, so its better because you're dealing with things that may or may not happen........

Kal'Stang said:
2: NASA got 18.7 billion last year. Their budget got cut for this year. How much did the Military spend last year? How much did entitlement programs cost? Point being that the amount of money that NASA gets is a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of government programs on a one on one bases. Why would you want to stop a program that has given so much to society on so little a budget? NASA is the only government program that hasn't run in the red. I don't know, maybe i'm missing something but it sure seems to me that getting rid of a program that actually produces while keeping programs that don't seems awefully counter productive to me.

You are missing something. What you are missing is the NASA's primary mission accomplishes nothing and the things that they do accomplish could be accomplished just as easily and effectively by someone else without the expensive and useless rockets, shuttles, etc. Also, we need to stop thinking that almost 19 bil is a "drop in the ocean". That's what got us into the fiscal situation we are in.

Kal'Stang said:
3: There's plenty of substance. You just refuse to see it.

You have yet to name anything useful discovered in space. Still waiting on that.....

Kal'Stang said:
Wait...what is the difference between the government giving private corporations money to do something vs the government just doing it itself when it comes to saving money? And really, so what if the government gives money to encourage the private corporations to do something...more often than not it often takes more than what the government gives for the private corporation to accomplish something. Which means no profit. Which means the private corporation will just tell the government no. And if the government gives enough to make a profit to the corporation then government money will be wasted as it will cost more than what it would take for the government to do it itself. Especially when it comes to something like finding NEO's.

The difference is the gov't doesnt foot the constant bill for NASA and instead only the occasional bill when its needed. Its the equivalent of defense contractors vs military servicemembers. Nothing, and I mean nothing, the government does is ever more cost effective than the private industry. Why? Because in the private industry, there's someone, somewhere, that has THEIR money sunk into the company. With government funds, everyone is playing with monopoly money.

MarineTpartier · Jan 9, 2013

Kal'Stang said:
:shock: :blink: The same resources that are on this planet are on other planets also. You seem to forget that other planets are made from the same things that this planet is made from. Some planets may lack some things yes, but to claim that there are no resources on other planets? That is just a WOW moment.

Here's a wow moment. Have we harvested anything from space that is useful and cost effective? No, we haven't and we are a LONG way from that being a reality. That renders it useless. That is, unless a private entity wants to take it on. I'm betting they won't. It costs so much to get into space and effectively be able to execute an operation like that, that it turns out it isn't cost effective to begin with. But, I guess that's where the gov't will come in. If it isn't cost effective, you can bet the US gov't will be there in the center of it.

Kal'Stang said:
And yet for every dollar that NASA spends the US economy recieves $8. What other government program do you know of that does that?

From anything they discover? No. From cool bells and whistles the create along the way. This circles back to my original point of someone else would have invented it if it was so pertinent that we have it. Do you have a source for the $8 claim?

Mach · Jan 9, 2013

A PRIORITY? Really? Good grief.

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

MarineTpartier said:
Oh, so its better because you're dealing with things that may or may not happen........

But there is evidence that it CAN happen. Not all dreams are spun out of thin air.

MarineTpartier said:
You are missing something. What you are missing is the NASA's primary mission accomplishes nothing and the things that they do accomplish could be accomplished just as easily and effectively by someone else without the expensive and useless rockets, shuttles, etc. Also, we need to stop thinking that almost 19 bil is a "drop in the ocean". That's what got us into the fiscal situation we are in.

1: 19 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to every other program that the government has. Again, how much does the military spend per year? On welfare?

2: You say that NASA has not accomplished anything for its primary mission...do you know what that primary mission actually is? Here, read about it...NASA And as I told the other guy awhile ago...Did you really think that the things that NASA wants to do was simple? That we'd be living on other planets in just 60 some odd years? The endeavor to get into space is not a short term thing. Its long term. Very long term. Although I will admit that if NASA got 1/4 of what the military alone gets we'd probably be on Mars by now.

MarineTpartier said:
You have yet to name anything useful discovered in space. Still waiting on that.....

Here ya go...

Everything on that table which is found naturally here on Earth is found in space...very useful stuff that we can use wouldn't you say?

MarineTpartier said:
The difference is the gov't doesnt foot the constant bill for NASA and instead only the occasional bill when its needed. Its the equivalent of defense contractors vs military servicemembers. Nothing, and I mean nothing, the government does is ever more cost effective than the private industry. Why? Because in the private industry, there's someone, somewhere, that has THEIR money sunk into the company. With government funds, everyone is playing with monopoly money.

Umm...the government constantly foots the bill to corporations for R&D reasearch also. The government gives out billions of dollars, (more than what NASA gets) to corporations for R&D every single year. And really, if NASA is not cost effective then why is it that for every dollar spent on NASA the economy gains $8? Can you explain that?

Goshin · Jan 9, 2013

wolfman24 said:
Uh huh. Sapient civilzations? do you mean sincient technologies?

Sentient, sapient, sophont... whatever term you prefer, meaning intelligent self-aware life forms.

The Drake equations were chiefly focused on how many civilizations might exist in our galaxy which are currently of a technological level that they might be detected by radio telescopes. Drake himself admitted that most of the variables in the equation could not be quantified with any meaningful accuracy until we had FAR more data on how common planets were, how common lifebearing planets were, how likely was the rise of higher animal life from primitive life, how likely was intelligence/sapience to arise from that, how commonly did sapient (sentient if you prefer) species develop technology and how long before they either wiped themselves out or fell into a long dark ages, etc etc.

Sapient technological civilization = intelligent aliens with a civilization and something we'd recognize as technology.

RabidAlpaca · Jan 9, 2013

Goshin said:
Sentient, sapient, sophont... whatever term you prefer, meaning intelligent self-aware life forms.

The Drake equations were chiefly focused on how many civilizations might exist in our galaxy which are currently of a technological level that they might be detected by radio telescopes. Drake himself admitted that most of the variables in the equation could not be quantified with any meaningful accuracy until we had FAR more data on how common planets were, how common lifebearing planets were, how likely was the rise of higher animal life from primitive life, how likely was intelligence/sapience to arise from that, how commonly did sapient (sentient if you prefer) species develop technology and how long before they either wiped themselves out or fell into a long dark ages, etc etc.

Sapient technological civilization = intelligent aliens with a civilization and something we'd recognize as technology.

This is absolutely correct, the variables in the drake equation are made up almost entirely of pure speculation.

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy (estimation based on some observation)
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets (largely speculation.)
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets (extreme speculation)
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (mega speculation)
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (super duper mega speculation)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space (so far into speculation we can't even see verifiable data)
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[5] (speculation based off previous speculation)

Truth is though, with the new Kepler telescope, we've been able to detect thousands and thousands of exoplanets. We're starting to see that stars tend to have many, many more planets than we expected. I personally rate the likelihood of other life existing in the universe to be very high.

How anybody can't get excited about going to mars or exploring space is beyond me.

Kal'Stang · Jan 9, 2013

I'm going to ignore much of your post here because I hope the following will clear some things up...

MarineTpartier said:
From anything they discover? No. From cool bells and whistles the create along the way. This circles back to my original point of someone else would have invented it if it was so pertinent that we have it. Do you have a source for the $8 claim?

First: Are you sure that those things would have been invented without thinking about and figuring out ways to go into space?

As for my claim, sorry, can't remember where I saw that but you can look at this....

Wiki ~ NASA funding

A November 1971 study of NASA released by the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, Missouri ("Technological Progress and Commercialization of Communications Satellites." In: "Economic Impact of Stimulated Technological Activity") concluded that "the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958-1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 -- and will continue to produce pay offs through 1987, at which time the total pay off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

A 1992 article in the British science journal Nature reported

"The economic benefits of NASA's programs are greater than generally realized. The main beneficiaries (the American public) may not even realize the source of their good fortune. . ."

Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports ("The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending: Preliminary Executive Summary.", April 1975. Also: "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy.", March 18, 1975) and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight-year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

— $21.6 billion in sales and benefits;

— 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and;

— $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to the "Nature" article, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).

Now take a look at that last sentence. NASA accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in 2002 alone. Including 23.5 billion in employee earnings. Yet NASA only received 14 billion dollars. You cut NASA out of the picture and what is going to happen to all those jobs? What is it going to do to the economy?

Space programs and their support among the population [W:91]

Your stance on space programs

I'm an American and I consider NASA a priority

I'm an American and I don't consider space programs a priority

I'm an American and I want more international coop (NASA + ESA + other)

I'm an European and I consider ESA a priority

I'm an European and I want more international coop

I'm an European and I don't care about space programs

I'm Russian and I want more for Roscosmos

I'm Russian and I want more cooperation

I'm Russian and I don't care about space programs

I'm (other) and herp derp, I leave comment

Haters gon' hate

Sporadic insanity normal.

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

Sporadic insanity normal.

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Engineer