- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Dec 13
Originally posted by SoothfastIt would help if the media actually reported stories accurately.
In fact, we can watch as massive quantities of humanitarian aid are poured into a Third World country, only to see it vanish into the coffers of a corrupt government or rival warlords. As you say, resources are there to eradicate poverty, but bad policy and poor planning squanders it all. Are we to believe that launching space stations into orbit is some ...[text shortened]... don't think these things through. I suppose NASA could do better in the public education arena.
More scientists might like talking about their work if they thought their was a
half decent chance that it would be reported accurately. And that they wouldn't
have to spend the next few months trying to correct the misreporting and
salvage their reputations.
I just watched the BBC butcher a story about the Gaia space telescope... saying
that our current map of the sky is based on a few hundred stars...
No our current map is based on the Hipparcos satellite that mapped 118,000 stars
and the Tycho-2 catalogue of 2.5 million stars.
I mean seriously, how hard is it to get your basic facts right?
And this is the BBC ffs.
Just taking Hipparcos into account they were three orders of magnitude out.
And that was far from the only error, or gross oversimplification they had...
But they had some pretty computer graphics.
If they spent half the time it took to make the pretty pictures checking their facts
they wouldn't have completely botched the story.
But apparently accurate reporting isn't any sort of priority.
19 Dec 13
6 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
No no no no.
First off... you cannot know how long we have before we MUST become a space faring
species or go extinct. ANY delay MIGHT be too long, We spotted the two mile wide
comet that just hurtled into the sun 1 year ago and that was unusual.
If it had been on a direct Earth impacting trajectory what would we have done?
The dinosaurs might ...[text shortened]... the technologies needed to do so, could very well help bring about the changes
we want to see.
you cannot know how long we have before we MUST become a space faring
species or go extinct.
Can't I KNOW that it is highly improbable that we will MUST put people in the space station to stop our whole species go extinct within, say, the next 50 years thus we would do more good for humanity for now spending more money on such things as tackling global warming which we KNOW could have serious consequences if we delay doing something about it?
Come off it; what do you think the chances of the human race becoming extinct in the next 50 years? The chances must surely be tiny. Not even a nuclear war within the next 50 years would be likely to eliminate our species -there would be many survivors and people on the space station will not be able to stop it happening nor do much to contribute to the survival of our species -nothing they do up there is likely to be THAT important!
Right now there is no agency in sending people into space so this should be very low on our list of current priorities and something to think about much later.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyThis debate will never progress further until you give up the notion that every penny spent on problem X is a penny taken away from problem Y. Sometimes problem X is a problem not for lack of funds, but because of bad policy which wastes funds. Throwing even more money at X just won't make a difference. On the other hand just a little money put into Y could reap huge rewards. In fact, efforts to solve Y may even turn up avenues for solving X. You talk about global warming. Well, one wonderful way to combat it is to utilize solar power wherever possible, since it produces zero emissions. But solar technology probably wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced as it is now were it not for the efforts of the space program. We're probably a couple decades farther along with solar technology than we would have been otherwise, because space exploration demanded the development of high-efficiency solar panels in order to power probes and satellites.you cannot know how long we have before we MUST become a space faring
species or go extinct.
Can't I KNOW that it is highly improbable that we will MUST put people in the space station to stop our whole species go extinct within, say, the next 50 years thus we would do more good for humanity for now spending more money on such things as ...[text shortened]... is should be very low on our list of current priorities and something to think about much later.
Originally posted by humy"Tiny" is also the word to describe the total funds the world is investing in space exploration. Nevertheless it is responsible for inspiring millions to get degrees in the sciences or mathematics (and I'm one of those millions). That alone more than pays off the costs of the space program, even if we take into account no other externalities, and externalities of those externalities.
[quote]Come off it; what do you think the chances of the human race becoming extinct in the next 50 years? The chances must surely be tiny.
And yes, the space program does stand some chance -- not totally insignificant if you weigh the probability with the consequences (i.e. the expected value) -- of saving the human race from a sudden extinguishing calamity.
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsEverything that progresses mankind and science is "unneeded" by you and your fellow delutionists. You prefer to live your lives by the ignorance of thousands of years ago.
News reports that emergency space walks will have to be performed to repair repair space station. Why do we even need space stations? It all seems unnecessarily dangerous and unneeded to me.
😏
Originally posted by Soothfastagain, you aren't reading what I actually say! I wasn't referring to the "space program" nor "space exploration" which I do NOT criticize in particular but rather specifically putting people into space which I DO criticize -we can have a lot of good science and space exploration without the huge cost of putting people into space within, say, the next 50 years and the human race isn't likely to go extinct in that time because we do NOT do this!
"Tiny" is also the word to describe the total funds the world is investing in space exploration. Nevertheless it is responsible for inspiring millions to get degrees in the sciences or mathematics (and I'm one of those millions). That alone more than pays off the costs of the space program, even if we take into account no other externalities, and externa ...[text shortened]... nces (i.e. the expected value) -- of saving the human race from a sudden extinguishing calamity.
In fact, for all we know, the exact opposite could happen i.e. we all go extinct BECAUSE we will keep spending money putting people into space when, if we only had put that money into something more productive Y in the next 50 years, we would have been saved.
The argument I hear here that we should spend a lot of money NOW (as opposed to, say, 50 years time, or however long it takes to solve the more argent life or death situations here on Earth first ) to put people into space as soon as possible to stop a possible extinction of the whole human race is extremely flimsy and just completely falls apart when put under any scrutiny. Why cannot exactly the same logic behind that argument be used in justifying spending money within the next 50 years putting people in an underground disaster bunker in the middle of Antarctica? -nobody here has yet explained why the same logic cannot be applied that way and I see no reason why it can't. Why is there nobody here shouting you are against science and progress for not doing that and saying sending people to the middle of Antarctica "is not a waste of money" or "what if there is a nuclear war? if we don't send people there, our species could go extinct because of this! we MUST send people there as soon as possible!" ?
Originally posted by Soothfast
This debate will never progress further until you give up the notion that every penny spent on problem X is a penny taken away from problem Y. Sometimes problem X is a problem not for lack of funds, but because of bad policy which wastes funds. Throwing even more money at X just won't make a difference. On the other hand just a little money put into Y c ...[text shortened]... emanded the development of high-efficiency solar panels in order to power probes and satellites.
This debate will never progress further until you give up the notion that every penny spent on problem X is a penny taken away from problem Y
that's not what I implied nor believe is always the case. As for when X and Y do not complement each other, what is wrong with my reasoning?
Throwing even more money at X just won't make a difference.
Of course it will make a difference!
because space exploration demanded the development of high-efficiency solar panels in order to power probes and satellites.
Once again, you are not actually reading what I said. WHERE did I say we should NOT spend money of space probes and satellites!?
I repeatedly said the exact opposite!
Originally posted by humyI am reading what you're saying. You want to quit putting humans into space and do everything with robots and automation instead, yes? And with regards to automated space exploration, your attitude seems to be to take a minimalist approach while waiting for robotics and AI to "catch up" at some future date, whereupon we could undertake ambitious automated space ventures more cheaply than we can with today's technology. So you're saying this: no astronauts, only machines; and let's not do too much with machines until the technology gets better, and let's not do anything with astronauts until we've eradicated all poverty on the planet. That more or less seems to be your platform.*
again, you aren't reading what I actually say! I wasn't referring to the "space program" nor "space exploration" which I do NOT criticize in particular but rather specifically putting people into space which I DO criticize -we can have a lot of good science and space exploration without the huge cost of putting people into space within, say, the next 50 years a ...[text shortened]... our species could go extinct because of this! we MUST send people there as soon as possible!" ?
But I gotta tell you, putting people into space is not going to get cheaper and safer unless we keep doing it. You need to keep the torch burning, from Gemini to Apollo to the space shuttle to the space station. If you let all that infrastructure go to rot, with all that human capital, experience, and know-how, it's going to be a monumental expense to get it all back again from scratch. Right now, veteran astronauts train rookies, and the rookies become veterans who train the next generation. You would break that continuity, seemingly on grounds that somehow technology will become so gee-whiz in the future that you can just push a button to get it all back.
A space program, a really effective one, must have a balance of automated and crewed ventures. They complement each other, and if you're going to give the insanely obese military budgets of the world a free pass, I think you have to acknowledge that, in the aggregate, even putting people into space is not all that terrifically expensive. If you gut the human half of space exploration, you're inevitably going to cripple the automated half. This is why my responses to you do not directly acknowledge your specific stance that we should only scuttle putting people into space, to the extent that you don't think I'm reading your posts thoroughly! Basically, I see your position to suspend putting people into space as a general attack on all space exploration, because that is what it is going to amount to in the real world, and that is why I am wholly opposed to your proposal. You think you can surgically separate the twin pillars of space exploration, letting one fall and the other stand. They'll both fall.
This is where I get to the "touchy-feely" angle. Space programs should and must inspire. They're not just scientific experiments, they're human adventures. A lot of good (admittedly not all of it tangible or measurable in dollars) comes from putting humans in space. You want to encourage people to go into science and mathematics? Put a man on the Moon. You want to inspire the next generation? Aim for putting a crew on Mars. Preferably an international crew. Automated space programs just don't excite ordinary people on the street; and no, they don't even excite politicians enough to get them to gladly open their wallets. It's just the way it is. If this were planet Vulcan your position would make sense; but on planet Earth you have to give the taxpayers who are funding government space programs something that excites them -- something they want to see happen. You ask people who give a damn what they want to see NASA do, and most will tell you to return to the Moon, or go to Mars. They won't tell you to send another dozen automated rovers to go scratch rocks on Olympus Mons or drop a weather balloon into the clouds of Jupiter. Those things are important, but again, they're just one half of what space exploration is all about.
It's been over a third of a century since we've last been to the Moon. I think we're long overdue to venture out beyond low Earth orbit again.
*EDIT: This is the part, I suppose, where you'll tell me emphatically that this is NOT your position at all, and in fact you're saying the exact opposite…?
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyThat's just ridiculous. Go look here:
In fact, for all we know, the exact opposite could happen i.e. we all go extinct BECAUSE we will keep spending money putting people into space when, if we only had put that money into something more productive Y in the next 50 years, we would have been saved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
NASA, which has the biggest budget of any space agency in the world, nevertheless makes up only 0.48% of the US federal budget. You are literally hyperventilating over chump change in the grand scheme of things. I have to wonder what your gripe is really about. Did an astronaut cut you off on the highway or something?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by SoothfastI completely agree with this.
I am reading what you're saying. You want to quit putting humans into space and do everything with robots and automation instead, yes? And with regards to automated space exploration, your attitude seems to be to take a minimalist approach while waiting for robotics and AI to "catch up" at some future date, whereupon we could undertake ambitious automate ...[text shortened]... phatically that this is NOT your position at all, and in fact you're saying the exact opposite…?
It's a big and current problem for NASA that they couldn't just go build a Saturn V
rocket tomorrow because the blueprints have mostly been destroyed and almost
everyone who knew how they worked has retired or died.
Because they sat in the doldrums for ages, and then had the colossally inefficient
and overly expensive space shuttle, they lost loads of knowledge and talent that they
are having to rebuild almost from scratch to create their Moon/Mars program.
Their have been a load of articles recently looking at various ways we could eliminate poverty
in the western world.
And one of the ways put forward (which I support) is a basic wage set above the poverty line.
This wage is paid out to every adult and replaces every other benefit (excepting some medical/
disability benefits or other special cases).
The wage is basic (although more than I currently earn) and while a few might just live on it
the majority will work to get more money and a better lifestyle.
This eliminates the need for a minimum wage as people are already paid more than the current
minimum by the government, which makes lower end workers cheaper and helps small businesses
and reduces unemployment. It also helps lots of small businesses when starting up.
It boosts the economy as more people have more spending money which means they are more able
buy stuff allowing more people to be employed making it, who then earn more money... virtuous circle.
And this is not fantasy, Switzerland is about to implement a version of this.
This works, it makes sense, it's practical, and it's affordable. We could do it tomorrow.
And having a space program or not having a space program would make absolutely no difference
except the a space program creates more (well paid) jobs and new technologies which boost the
entire economy, as well as improving quality of life.
People are not poor because we don't have enough money because we spend money on manned space-flight.
People are poor because governments and politicians don't care about poor people.
And solving that problem doesn't take money, it takes votes.
Originally posted by Soothfast
I am reading what you're saying. You want to quit putting humans into space and do everything with robots and automation instead, yes? And with regards to automated space exploration, your attitude seems to be to take a minimalist approach while waiting for robotics and AI to "catch up" at some future date, whereupon we could undertake ambitious automate ...[text shortened]... phatically that this is NOT your position at all, and in fact you're saying the exact opposite…?
I am reading what you're saying. You want to quit putting humans into space and do everything with robots and automation instead, yes? And with regards to automated space exploration, your attitude seems to be to take a minimalist approach while waiting for robotics and AI to "catch up" at some future date, whereupon we could undertake ambitious automated space ventures more cheaply than we can with today's technology. So you're saying this: no astronauts, only machines; and let's not do too much with machines until the technology gets better, and let's not do anything with astronauts until we've eradicated all poverty on the planet. That more or less seems to be your platform.*
YES! That is what I am saying.
But I gotta tell you, putting people into space is not going to get cheaper and safer unless we keep doing it.
So if it currently cost £100,000 to put (and keep there for a while ) somebody into space, spending £100,000 just to put somebody up there would then reduce that cost next time?
I don't think so. I think the way it works it that reducing the cost of putting people up there comes from doing research and development into new technology to do it cheaper and NOT spending money putting somebody up there using existing technology. Your reasoning is flawed.
NASA, which has the biggest budget of any space agency in the world, nevertheless makes up only 0.48% of the US federal budget.
If only 0.48% of the US federal budget is misspent, that justifies the misspent? Anyway, I was not criticizing expenditure by “any” space agency; just ones that put people in space.
Also, it isn't the percentage that counts but the actual amount: a billion dollars is still a billion dollars regardless of what tiny percent of something it is and it still could be used to save, say, one million lives if spend just right especially in the third world again, regardless of what tiny percent of something it is (note that I am claiming this is how any billion dollars should be alternatively spent in particular -I am just giving that as an example for the sake of argument, nothing more )
You want to encourage people to go into science and mathematics?
yes; by spending most of the money on the most useful science. Also, science and maths isn't about putting people in space in particular -that would at best make an extremely trivial part of it at most.
20 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humymisprint:
[quote] I am reading what you're saying. You want to quit putting humans into space and do everything with robots and automation instead, yes? And with regards to automated space exploration, your attitude seems to be to take a minimalist approach while waiting for robotics and AI to "catch up" at some future date, whereupon we could undertake ambitious autom ...[text shortened]... people in space in particular -that would at best make an extremely trivial part of it at most.
that should have been
" (note that I am NOT claiming this is how any billion dollars should be alternatively spent in particular -I am just giving that as an example for the sake of argument and to make my point, nothing more )