In 1953, Pyroceram, a white pyrex-ceramic-like material capable of withstanding enormous variations in temperature, was invented and developed by Dr. S. Donald Stookey of Corning research and development division. Corningware, an oven-to-table service made of Pyroceram was introduced in 1958 by Corning Glass. It featured the first little blue Cornflower decoration, designed by Corning staff, which became the trademark of Corning consumer products for three decades.
So the next time someone says it's Pyrex, know that it is for more than just the beakers in science class. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Here's a couple of references for you ( albeit one is a child's page but none the less true ( and in this case more or less appropriate ) .
I'm sure I read somewhere that oven safe dishes were a result of nose cone research. I'd look into it but you would just say it's propaganda. Now go stick your head in a bucket somewhere.
read the bottom of the page : " The Story of Corningware
First developed for America's space program, the glass-ceramic material in Corningware can withstand drastic temperature changes. In 1958, this material made the transition to the kitchen, and Corningware products were born. Since then, Corningware's versatility and elegant appearance have made it one of America's most recognized and respected cookware brands. More than 750 million pieces of Corningware have been manufactured since its inception. "
Now why was he doing that research? And who paid for it?
<strong>I'm all for progress in science and exploration...but shouldn't we get our priorities in order first?
Heck, we haven't even figured out the mess we have here on earth and we're looking to go to Mars? Perhaps after we've solved world famine and peace, then we should look at other worlds.
I read somewhere that with the amount of money the NASA spends on the space program, you could easily provide guaranteed health care to every individual in the U.S.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some of the solutions to those very same problems may be out there.
Most people don't realize it but the budget of the Space Program is small in comparison to other gov. programs. People usually pick it because it's benifits and potential benifits aren't imediately obvious.
Of course no one would question say the military for the way they spend money ( the $400.00 for the claw hammer really happened a few years ago ).
Also the amount of money the miltary spends on projects that don't work would really scare you. And are they necessary?
The space program is good for you and me. And unlike military research isn't designed to kill people.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said it wasn't.
But we were discussing the shuttle.
I said "There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle."
You replied "Do you know where Corningware came from?"
It is quite apparent that after doing your homework you learned the truth and tried to spin it into more useless argument.
Discussion about the Space program as a general topic is a He11 of a lot different then that of the thread. Remember the thread. It's part of the header bar at the top of your screen.
I said "There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle."
You replied "Do you know where Corningware came from?"
It is quite apparent that after doing your homework you learned the truth and tried to spin it into more useless argument.
Discussion about the Space program as a general topic is a He11 of a lot different then that of the thread. Remember the thread. It's part of the header bar at the top of your screen.
Nice back peddling but you're the one who brought up " Tang " and " Velcro ". A long time before the shuttle. And if you had read those web pages some of that stuff came about as a result of the space shuttle.
How about the DeBakey blood pump : " joint effort beginning in 1988 between NASA and a group of doctors headed by Dr. Michael DeBakey led to development of this Ventricular Assist Device (VAD), a small, efficient axial flow blood pump. In order to develop the high performance required of the liquid propellant Space Shuttle main engines, NASA pushed the state of the art in the technology of turbopump design. Using this technology and computational fluid dynamics software developed for use in Shuttle flow analysis, NASA engineers worked toward the miniaturization and optimization of the small blood pump. "
Yes, I found the truth I already knew. All inventions are a result of derivative research. But if it wasn't for the need no one would be looking further in that area.
Yeh, I guess I'll swim back into the ocean where my kind are overpopulating and using up all the plankton. Yes we will just stay here until we die out. Never mind about that interesting thing up on the bank that might have taught us something.
Someone mentioned that we don't need manned spaceflight, that we could do it with unmanned programs...
Does that person realize that we ALREADY have an unmanned space program ? ... When that is the better way to accomplish something, that is the system that is used !!!
Launches of UNmanned rockets are actually much more common than the shuttle... Have you ever heard of Boeing's Delta rockets ? (I believe there's one sitting on a pad in Florida as I type this) ... also the Taurus and Taurus light systems that fly fairly regularly.
I agree that not all hi-tech stuff is created by the space program. But a LOT of modern technoligy IS developed from programs that were origionally developed for the space program. For example : INS (inertial navigation systems) was origionally developed for the trip to the moon... it has since found it's way into Airliners, and has had a HUGE impact on our ability to fly around the globe.
In any case, To say that there is no benefit from a manned space program is VERY short-sighted. It certainlt costs more than it brings in today, but there is no way of forseeing what the future benefits will be... but it can be said with certainty that there WILL be benefits in the future from todays efforts!
<strong>Someone mentioned that we don't need manned spaceflight, that we could do it with unmanned programs...
Does that person realize that we ALREADY have an unmanned space program ? ... When that is the better way to accomplish something, that is the system that is used !!!
Launches of UNmanned rockets are actually much more common than the shuttle... Have you ever heard of Boeing's Delta rockets ? (I believe there's one sitting on a pad in Florida as I type this) ... also the Taurus and Taurus light systems that fly fairly regularly.
I agree that not all hi-tech stuff is created by the space program. But a LOT of modern technoligy IS developed from programs that were origionally developed for the space program. For example : INS (inertial navigation systems) was origionally developed for the trip to the moon... it has since found it's way into Airliners, and has had a HUGE impact on our ability to fly around the globe.
In any case, To say that there is no benefit from a manned space program is VERY short-sighted. It certainlt costs more than it brings in today, but there is no way of forseeing what the future benefits will be... but it can be said with certainty that there WILL be benefits in the future from todays efforts!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the people who use that blood pump might disagree about the cost.
Actually I'm not sure it costs more than it brings in I refer the people here once again to this address
Did we really need to go to the moon to come up with velcro and GPS?
Why not go the direct way? Instead of getting the benefits as side effects of a larger project why don´t try a more direct approach?
Or we could go with a more practical core project that in itself had better output than pretty pictures of people walking in low gravity.
One example: Give humankind the objective to make Somalia green and without any chance of drought. That would surely make some technical (and political and diplomatic) spin offs we can use in other areas. We will probably.
<strong>Did we really need to go to the moon to come up with velcro and GPS?
Why not go the direct way? Instead of getting the benefits as side effects of a larger project why don´t try a more direct approach?
Or we could go with a more practical core project that in itself had better output than pretty pictures of people walking in low gravity.
One example: Give humankind the objective to make Somalia green and without any chance of drought. That would surely make some technical (and political and diplomatic) spin offs we can use in other areas. We will probably.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anders did you check out the address and some of the others above? It's a lot more than tang and velcro. Would you really erase all those improvements? Plus orbital data can help understand the mechinism of draught. Once we understand maybe we can do something about it. Most people don't get it about how many areas the space program has touched.
The velcro and GPS is just examples. What I tried to say was:
1) All those spin of products would probably have been cheaper/we would have developed more products like that for the same money if we had founded great ideas directly.
or if you insist on having a huge project
2) Why not create a project that save millions of lifes instead of putting 10-15 people on the face of a satellite? Making Africa green is not trivial and will need a lot of innovation that will make spin of products just like Apollo.
I understand the need of great stories and Apollo was perhaps last century´s greatest. But I have never understood the spin of argument. Its like arguing for a interstate freeway by saying that Mr. Jones only have five minutes in his car to his favorite bar instead of ten.
<strong>The velcro and GPS is just examples. What I tried to say was:
1) All those spin of products would probably have been cheaper/we would have developed more products like that for the same money if we had founded great ideas directly.
or if you insist on having a huge project
2) Why not create a project that save millions of lifes instead of putting 10-15 people on the face of a satellite? Making Africa green is not trivial and will need a lot of innovation that will make spin of products just like Apollo.
I understand the need of great stories and Apollo was perhaps last century´s greatest. But I have never understood the spin of argument. Its like arguing for a interstate freeway by saying that Mr. Jones only have five minutes in his car to his favorite bar instead of ten.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason is that we may not have found those improvements directly. That blood pump for example. It could have been another twenty years but, someone had already completed some of the research.
Some of those improvements came about because of chance. They were studying something for the space program and someone thought " hey, you can apply it this way ! " Those improvements might not have happened at all.
Most new ideas are stumbled across while studying something else. Once again the old saying " Necessity is the mother of invention. " But if no one's looking in the right places you may never find it. I don't think making any area draught free is trivial given our increasing world population. It's just that the space program can help. It's the diversity of research that something like the space program inspires that gives the most benifit over a large area.
And by the way we're already on the face of a satellite. It orbits the sun.
<strong>And by the way we're already on the face of a satellite. It orbits the sun.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the space program didn´t put us here did it hmm?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
The reason is that we may not have found those improvements directly.
...
Some of those improvements came about because of chance. They were studying something for the space program and someone thought " hey, you can apply it this way ! " Those improvements might not have happened at all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or given enough founding it would. We will never know will we?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>I don't think making any area draught free is trivial given our increasing world population. It's just that the space program can help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could turn it around: To find out how the desert is moving and how deep under it the water lies we would have to send up some sattelites and thus making space travel possible as a side effect.. But we wouldn´t have to sent people to the moon to do that would we? The greening of africa would be such a great project that it too would make a lot of spin offs (Water purification technics, long distance liquid transportation, polution handling technics to name the obvious).
The spin offs will never justify the space program in itself. If they did the universities would get together and sent a manned mission to Mars. You could argue that the spin offs together with the adventure (or the objective to win over USSR in a area where you are losing) is worth it. But today I would argue that other grand projects (like the greening of Africa) would give more bang for the bucks.
You could turn it around: To find out how the desert is moving and how deep under it the water lies we would have to send up some sattelites and thus making space travel possible as a side effect.. But we wouldn´t have to sent people to the moon to do that would we? The greening of africa would be such a great project that it too would make a lot of spin offs (Water purification technics, long distance liquid transportation, polution handling technics to name the obvious).
The spin offs will never justify the space program in itself. If they did the universities would get together and sent a manned mission to Mars. You could argue that the spin offs together with the adventure (or the objective to win over USSR in a area where you are losing) is worth it. But today I would argue that other grand projects (like the greening of Africa) would give more bang for the bucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No you can't turn it around. The Space program by it's very nature generates reasearch in many areas. Far more than any single program would.
And I think Towel has demonstrated that really as government programs go it's a bargain.
Thanks Towel ! It's what I've been trying to get through to these guys.
Another thing I read awhile ago is that once space manufacturing gets under way because of the things you can do in space that we can't do here it's estimated that it would have a 6 billion dollar a year return. And that's just for the starters. A little more than spin offs.
I also tried to explain to you that climate studies in space can help solve your desert problem.
Most estimates are that Africa about 8 thousand years ago was lush and green. What happened?
We need to study climate all over the planet ( not just africa ) to understand why this change occured.
Plus mankind has always run on manifest destiny. Our future is very obviously in Space. It will make a lot of the problems we have now more managable ( over population, dwindling resources, maybe a sense of being one planet not a bunch seperate countries at each other's throats etc. ).
Sometimes the answers to your questions require that you step back from the problem and look at it from a different vantage point ( you know the forest for the trees ).
It's our children's future. If we just stay here and only depend on this planet I believe they won't have much of one. You can't stay in the cradle forever. And we're already getting a little big for it now. It's really about the continuation of the human race. So we don't end up like the dinosaurs and a thousand other speices that have come and gone on this planet. How can you put a price on that?
Let me clear one thing up first: I´m not against sending rockets into space. We need satelittes to do various tasks. Its a well defined problem that we know a good solution to.
What I attack is projects like Apollo and the space shuttle.
[quote]No you can't turn it around. The Space program by it's very nature generates reasearch in many areas. Far more than any single program would.<hr></blockquote>
This quote from you is an answer to two arguments I proposed. Let me take them seperate.
The multiple single program proposal: Noone have shown me any calculation that a grand program will generate more research than if the same money was spend on those areas directly. Please show me such a calculation. The burden is on you because logic says that the research AND the cost of blasting hundred feet high hardware 300000 km away and back exceeds the research alone. Without such proof it is impossible to argue further that way.
The "Find another grand project" proposal: A huge program here on earth would generate just as much research on different areas as the space program. There has been tons of proposals on how to make africa green, all of them not doable with current knowledge in technology, ecology and other areas. And IF we didn´t have sattelites before to monitor the development of the desert that would be a spin of effect of a green africa project.
Logic even say that now we have had two huge space programs more spin ofs could be generated if we have a grand project in another field.
And about Towels numbers: The development of Apollo and the space shuttle is not reflected in NASAs current spending. Its more or less a maitenance budget and a very low one according to to most observers. And I would like to know if the budget includes the military and private use of NASA facilities. Both are seperate from NASAs "core" budget.
Your last argument is more difficult to attack since it is a bit far out, someone going against it will look like he is not capable of imagine more than five years into the future and it is a moral and political question that you can´t use logic to determine. But my opinion is that the problems people here and is more important than an abstract humankind. I will rather use money to better the lifes of millions of people now that being able to spread a small sample of humankind to other planets some day (I really hope not you are expecting a massive evacuation of billions of people from earth when that time comes). I´ll rather clean the oceans here and now than lifting a few fish into aquariums when its too late to preserve "fishkind".
And lastly to Towel:
[quote]Having humans in space: Priceless <hr></blockquote>
Yes Space travel is a great adventure and you really can´t say adventures are worth so and so much. But what about human lifes? They are priceless too. So what do you do when you compare two priceless things?
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.
<strong>Let me clear one thing up first: I´m not against sending rockets into space. We need satellites to do various tasks. Its a well defined problem that we know a good solution to.
What I attack is projects like Apollo and the space shuttle.
Yes Space travel is a great adventure and you really can?t say adventures are worth so and so much. But what about human lifes? They are priceless too. So what do you do when you compare two priceless things?
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.</strong>[/QUOTE]
Ander's,
You are obviously a thinking and caring person. We both want a better place for mankind as whole to live in.
The fatal flaw in your logic is however........the same thing that has brought mankind to this place. The problem is that we haven't considered the future enough and what's to come based on our actions.
The early pioneers of this country were thinking that way when they began to clear cut forests. I imagine they thought something like " There will always be more trees and we've got all this stuff to build ". They're doing the same thing today in the Amazon rain forests.
I'm not saying you think this way. It's just that it's good to think about the here and now. But, it's far more important to think about the future.
It's been obvious to me for quite some time that our future is out there. And as time goes on the ultimate benefit to mankind will seem obvious. But, for right now for some that's difficult to understand.
I really don't expect to change your mind. For that we'd have to be here a hundred years from now looking back.
Sorry. I see a lot of patos and hear words like those used at anneversaries. But no proof. You talk about the future and its importent to see into that instead of thinking about today. But what if those people in the past started to build a babels tower to come into heaven? "Well it might take 200 years but we are thinking ahead. Preserving humankind in the future". To say that you care about the future isn´t enough. You have to qualify it more.
Its not that you are thinking about the future and I am not. We just see two different solutions in the future.
I´ll ask two simple questions:
1) Do you have any proof that the spin of effects are larger that if we spent the money on direct research? The "spin of" argument is widely used but I have never seen any calculations?
And since you are shifting from "spin of" to "Importent to go into space because humans one day will need to go there"
2) A moral/political one: Is it more important for humankind to spread its seeds (not a mass evacuation) into space in the future than save humans on the earth here and now AND in the future (remember 1500 lifes a day)
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
\t
\tSo are you proposing that we diminish NASA?s already comparatively small budget to save lives and clean up the planet. I sympathize with the Idea of making the world a better place, but why NASA? Yeah I know, NASA is a big waste of money , they just piss the taxpayers money down the drain sending people up in rockets to spin around the earth for a few days only to have them burn up on reentry.
And I know we benefit so much from the information that wouldn't be possible if the government haven't have given grants for the research of pig shit. And I know you couldn?t compare the happiness that the postal employees enjoyed when they sent packages & cakes to each other, and rode around in limousines, to inspiration of a child seeing his first shuttle launch.
\t
And I know the proposal may sound trite, but what about all of the other money the government spends? Someone said earlier that the government spends the budget of NASA for welfare every eight days (much of that money goes to deadbeats and people that don?t want a job.) Now I?m not downing welfare, my family was on it for a brief period when I was a child, but pulled itself up using that awful thing called work.
\t
No NASA must cut it?s spending. Screw more abundant and efficient spending of foreign aid. Us Americans and the money that used to go to that useless space program are the only hope for those poor starving children that you seen on the TV commercials asking for a two cents a day, and the only hope for mankind.
Maybe I?m just a kid at heart, maybe I?m short sighted and just like the Idea of spaceships! VROOM VROOM. Or maybe I just don?t like the Idea of having all our eggs in this one basket that the solar system has a tendency to throw large rocks at.
You know I was going to let it go after my last post. But after yours I have to say I've already proven what I've been saying. Other's have jumped in and helped my argument and you still won't pay attention to the facts.
That's why you've been hearing the nebulous descriptions of man's destiny and so forth ( not that stuff isn't important our " spirit " that is ). I realize no matter what I give you in the way of proof like a little kid you'll say " well why's that ? "
There is no point in pumping facts your way. You've already made up your mind. When Towel gave you those numbers that should have been enough.
And about spin offs not being important. I've already shown you how those advances would have taken a lot longer to develope or not even be discovered if it wasn't for the space program. I imagine the people who benifited from the medical advances alone would have a bone or two to pick with you.
About the nebulous stuff. We need new horizons to wonder about and aspire towards. It's what has kept our speices going all along if you haven't noticed.
Also in my lifetime so far the world's population has increased by leaps and bounds. We're already a billion over what the planet can comfortably hold. Your greening of Africa might help for a while but it isn't going to change that.
The only way earth is going to end up being anything but a smog choked, buildings and factorys wall to wall, garbage dump is if we turn our focus outward. You know we could do a lot just by putting our factorys in orbit. Mine the moon and the asteriod belt instead of using up every last resource here. They can't pollute or damage things up there. And no, I don't see a mass exodus from earth. But, as our population continues to grow ( and I don't see that changing ) some of us will still live here but some will live out there.
Yes Anders because they want to. Because of the research to be done. Because of the money to made. But, mostly because of expanding our horizons. To see what's over the next hill. We really can't do that here anymore. Not in the sense of the early pioneers.
But the argument is done. You haven't really countered anyone else's. You keep saying the space program' expensive. We've shown you it's not in comaparison to a lot of things. You started out with the old drone " Tang and Velcro " ( acctually it was velcro and GPS but the same idea applies ) I've shown you that's not true. Did you even read the earlier posts and links before you made that highly erronious statement?
I'm also thinking like most programs your greening of Africa is going to cost a lot more than you think. Programs have a way of over running their budgets when you can't anticipate everything. By your own admission you're dealing with a lot of new technologys there. And I'd bet it would cost a mint to develope and maintain. Probably much more than any single project for the space program. But, unlike you I'm not claiming your proposal isn't a good idea.
But I know you are so pigeon holed you can't see anything else. You can't help someone to see what's around when they've got blinders on. So believe what you will but you know you won't win converts to your goals by ignoring their facts. And really you've been supplied with plenty. Sorry if you can't see the truth but it's your loss.
I feel this with conviction that if we don't destroy ourselves in the mean time. People a hundred years or so from now will look back and sadly shake their heads at attitudes like yours. Their questions will be something like : " How did they think we could get along without space commerce, exploration, and travel ".
Comments
<strong>
Oh the ignorance is great in this one...
In 1953, Pyroceram, a white pyrex-ceramic-like material capable of withstanding enormous variations in temperature, was invented and developed by Dr. S. Donald Stookey of Corning research and development division. Corningware, an oven-to-table service made of Pyroceram was introduced in 1958 by Corning Glass. It featured the first little blue Cornflower decoration, designed by Corning staff, which became the trademark of Corning consumer products for three decades.
So the next time someone says it's Pyrex, know that it is for more than just the beakers in science class. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/853827.asp"; target="_blank">http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/853827.asp</a>;
<a href="http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/spinoffs2.htm"; target="_blank">http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/spinoffs2.htm</a>;
Here's a couple of references for you ( albeit one is a child's page but none the less true ( and in this case more or less appropriate ) .
I'm sure I read somewhere that oven safe dishes were a result of nose cone research. I'd look into it but you would just say it's propaganda. Now go stick your head in a bucket somewhere.
Wait a minute... gosh here's a book you can read
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375409793/104-3314309-1401517?vi=glance"; target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375409793/104-3314309-1401517?vi=glance</a>;
Well look what I found
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/574082/104-3314309-1401517"; target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/574082/104-3314309-1401517</a>;
read the bottom of the page : " The Story of Corningware
First developed for America's space program, the glass-ceramic material in Corningware can withstand drastic temperature changes. In 1958, this material made the transition to the kitchen, and Corningware products were born. Since then, Corningware's versatility and elegant appearance have made it one of America's most recognized and respected cookware brands. More than 750 million pieces of Corningware have been manufactured since its inception. "
Now why was he doing that research? And who paid for it?
Lastly and most damning of course is
<a href="http://www.spacetechhalloffame.org/inductees.cfm"; target="_blank">http://www.spacetechhalloffame.org/inductees.cfm</a>;
The pull down tab for different years is an interesting read.
The space program is good for you and me. And unlike military research isn't designed to kill people.
I'll leave you with an old saying : " Necessity is the mother of invention ".
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>I'm all for progress in science and exploration...but shouldn't we get our priorities in order first?
Heck, we haven't even figured out the mess we have here on earth and we're looking to go to Mars? Perhaps after we've solved world famine and peace, then we should look at other worlds.
I read somewhere that with the amount of money the NASA spends on the space program, you could easily provide guaranteed health care to every individual in the U.S.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some of the solutions to those very same problems may be out there.
Most people don't realize it but the budget of the Space Program is small in comparison to other gov. programs. People usually pick it because it's benifits and potential benifits aren't imediately obvious.
Of course no one would question say the military for the way they spend money ( the $400.00 for the claw hammer really happened a few years ago ).
Also the amount of money the miltary spends on projects that don't work would really scare you. And are they necessary?
<strong>
The space program is good for you and me. And unlike military research isn't designed to kill people.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said it wasn't.
But we were discussing the shuttle.
I said "There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle."
You replied "Do you know where Corningware came from?"
It is quite apparent that after doing your homework you learned the truth and tried to spin it into more useless argument.
Discussion about the Space program as a general topic is a He11 of a lot different then that of the thread. Remember the thread. It's part of the header bar at the top of your screen.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
I never said it wasn't.
But we were discussing the shuttle.
I said "There has been very little practical technology that has come from the use of the Space shuttle."
You replied "Do you know where Corningware came from?"
It is quite apparent that after doing your homework you learned the truth and tried to spin it into more useless argument.
Discussion about the Space program as a general topic is a He11 of a lot different then that of the thread. Remember the thread. It's part of the header bar at the top of your screen.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice back peddling but you're the one who brought up " Tang " and " Velcro ". A long time before the shuttle. And if you had read those web pages some of that stuff came about as a result of the space shuttle.
How about the DeBakey blood pump : " joint effort beginning in 1988 between NASA and a group of doctors headed by Dr. Michael DeBakey led to development of this Ventricular Assist Device (VAD), a small, efficient axial flow blood pump. In order to develop the high performance required of the liquid propellant Space Shuttle main engines, NASA pushed the state of the art in the technology of turbopump design. Using this technology and computational fluid dynamics software developed for use in Shuttle flow analysis, NASA engineers worked toward the miniaturization and optimization of the small blood pump. "
Yes, I found the truth I already knew. All inventions are a result of derivative research. But if it wasn't for the need no one would be looking further in that area.
[ 02-07-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>hey brother fish... what are you doing going up on that dry land... we haven't finished exploring the oceans yet.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! Very well said.
[qb]quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by curiousuburb:
hey brother fish... what are you doing going up on that dry land... we haven't finished exploring the oceans yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly! Very well said.
__________________
Yeh, I guess I'll swim back into the ocean where my kind are overpopulating and using up all the plankton. Yes we will just stay here until we die out. Never mind about that interesting thing up on the bank that might have taught us something.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Does that person realize that we ALREADY have an unmanned space program ? ... When that is the better way to accomplish something, that is the system that is used !!!
Launches of UNmanned rockets are actually much more common than the shuttle... Have you ever heard of Boeing's Delta rockets ? (I believe there's one sitting on a pad in Florida as I type this) ... also the Taurus and Taurus light systems that fly fairly regularly.
I agree that not all hi-tech stuff is created by the space program. But a LOT of modern technoligy IS developed from programs that were origionally developed for the space program. For example : INS (inertial navigation systems) was origionally developed for the trip to the moon... it has since found it's way into Airliners, and has had a HUGE impact on our ability to fly around the globe.
In any case, To say that there is no benefit from a manned space program is VERY short-sighted. It certainlt costs more than it brings in today, but there is no way of forseeing what the future benefits will be... but it can be said with certainty that there WILL be benefits in the future from todays efforts!
<strong>Someone mentioned that we don't need manned spaceflight, that we could do it with unmanned programs...
Does that person realize that we ALREADY have an unmanned space program ? ... When that is the better way to accomplish something, that is the system that is used !!!
Launches of UNmanned rockets are actually much more common than the shuttle... Have you ever heard of Boeing's Delta rockets ? (I believe there's one sitting on a pad in Florida as I type this) ... also the Taurus and Taurus light systems that fly fairly regularly.
I agree that not all hi-tech stuff is created by the space program. But a LOT of modern technoligy IS developed from programs that were origionally developed for the space program. For example : INS (inertial navigation systems) was origionally developed for the trip to the moon... it has since found it's way into Airliners, and has had a HUGE impact on our ability to fly around the globe.
In any case, To say that there is no benefit from a manned space program is VERY short-sighted. It certainlt costs more than it brings in today, but there is no way of forseeing what the future benefits will be... but it can be said with certainty that there WILL be benefits in the future from todays efforts!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the people who use that blood pump might disagree about the cost.
Actually I'm not sure it costs more than it brings in I refer the people here once again to this address
<a href="http://www.spacetechhalloffame.org/inductees.cfm"; target="_blank">http://www.spacetechhalloffame.org/inductees.cfm</a>;
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Why not go the direct way? Instead of getting the benefits as side effects of a larger project why don´t try a more direct approach?
Or we could go with a more practical core project that in itself had better output than pretty pictures of people walking in low gravity.
One example: Give humankind the objective to make Somalia green and without any chance of drought. That would surely make some technical (and political and diplomatic) spin offs we can use in other areas. We will probably.
<strong>Did we really need to go to the moon to come up with velcro and GPS?
Why not go the direct way? Instead of getting the benefits as side effects of a larger project why don´t try a more direct approach?
Or we could go with a more practical core project that in itself had better output than pretty pictures of people walking in low gravity.
One example: Give humankind the objective to make Somalia green and without any chance of drought. That would surely make some technical (and political and diplomatic) spin offs we can use in other areas. We will probably.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anders did you check out the address and some of the others above? It's a lot more than tang and velcro. Would you really erase all those improvements? Plus orbital data can help understand the mechinism of draught. Once we understand maybe we can do something about it. Most people don't get it about how many areas the space program has touched.
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
1) All those spin of products would probably have been cheaper/we would have developed more products like that for the same money if we had founded great ideas directly.
or if you insist on having a huge project
2) Why not create a project that save millions of lifes instead of putting 10-15 people on the face of a satellite? Making Africa green is not trivial and will need a lot of innovation that will make spin of products just like Apollo.
I understand the need of great stories and Apollo was perhaps last century´s greatest. But I have never understood the spin of argument. Its like arguing for a interstate freeway by saying that Mr. Jones only have five minutes in his car to his favorite bar instead of ten.
<strong>The velcro and GPS is just examples. What I tried to say was:
1) All those spin of products would probably have been cheaper/we would have developed more products like that for the same money if we had founded great ideas directly.
or if you insist on having a huge project
2) Why not create a project that save millions of lifes instead of putting 10-15 people on the face of a satellite? Making Africa green is not trivial and will need a lot of innovation that will make spin of products just like Apollo.
I understand the need of great stories and Apollo was perhaps last century´s greatest. But I have never understood the spin of argument. Its like arguing for a interstate freeway by saying that Mr. Jones only have five minutes in his car to his favorite bar instead of ten.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason is that we may not have found those improvements directly. That blood pump for example. It could have been another twenty years but, someone had already completed some of the research.
Some of those improvements came about because of chance. They were studying something for the space program and someone thought " hey, you can apply it this way ! " Those improvements might not have happened at all.
Most new ideas are stumbled across while studying something else. Once again the old saying " Necessity is the mother of invention. " But if no one's looking in the right places you may never find it. I don't think making any area draught free is trivial given our increasing world population. It's just that the space program can help. It's the diversity of research that something like the space program inspires that gives the most benifit over a large area.
And by the way we're already on the face of a satellite. It orbits the sun.
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>And by the way we're already on the face of a satellite. It orbits the sun.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the space program didn´t put us here did it hmm?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
The reason is that we may not have found those improvements directly.
...
Some of those improvements came about because of chance. They were studying something for the space program and someone thought " hey, you can apply it this way ! " Those improvements might not have happened at all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or given enough founding it would. We will never know will we?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>I don't think making any area draught free is trivial given our increasing world population. It's just that the space program can help.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You could turn it around: To find out how the desert is moving and how deep under it the water lies we would have to send up some sattelites and thus making space travel possible as a side effect.. But we wouldn´t have to sent people to the moon to do that would we? The greening of africa would be such a great project that it too would make a lot of spin offs (Water purification technics, long distance liquid transportation, polution handling technics to name the obvious).
The spin offs will never justify the space program in itself. If they did the universities would get together and sent a manned mission to Mars. You could argue that the spin offs together with the adventure (or the objective to win over USSR in a area where you are losing) is worth it. But today I would argue that other grand projects (like the greening of Africa) would give more bang for the bucks.
Annual spending on <a href="http://cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/highlights.asp"; target="_blank">health care</a> in US in 2001: $1.4 trillion
Total discretionary spending of the <a href="http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/budget.html"; target="_blank">US government</a> in 2002: $0.718 trillion
Defense budget in 2002: $0.336 trillion
Combined profits of <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/m/mrk.html"; target="_blank">Merck</a> and <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/p/pfe.html"; target="_blank">Pfizer</a> in 2002: $0.0153 trillion
Total NASA budget in 2002: $0.0149 trillion
Having humans in space: Priceless
<strong>
You could turn it around: To find out how the desert is moving and how deep under it the water lies we would have to send up some sattelites and thus making space travel possible as a side effect.. But we wouldn´t have to sent people to the moon to do that would we? The greening of africa would be such a great project that it too would make a lot of spin offs (Water purification technics, long distance liquid transportation, polution handling technics to name the obvious).
The spin offs will never justify the space program in itself. If they did the universities would get together and sent a manned mission to Mars. You could argue that the spin offs together with the adventure (or the objective to win over USSR in a area where you are losing) is worth it. But today I would argue that other grand projects (like the greening of Africa) would give more bang for the bucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No you can't turn it around. The Space program by it's very nature generates reasearch in many areas. Far more than any single program would.
And I think Towel has demonstrated that really as government programs go it's a bargain.
Thanks Towel ! It's what I've been trying to get through to these guys.
Another thing I read awhile ago is that once space manufacturing gets under way because of the things you can do in space that we can't do here it's estimated that it would have a 6 billion dollar a year return. And that's just for the starters. A little more than spin offs.
I also tried to explain to you that climate studies in space can help solve your desert problem.
Most estimates are that Africa about 8 thousand years ago was lush and green. What happened?
We need to study climate all over the planet ( not just africa ) to understand why this change occured.
Plus mankind has always run on manifest destiny. Our future is very obviously in Space. It will make a lot of the problems we have now more managable ( over population, dwindling resources, maybe a sense of being one planet not a bunch seperate countries at each other's throats etc. ).
Sometimes the answers to your questions require that you step back from the problem and look at it from a different vantage point ( you know the forest for the trees ).
It's our children's future. If we just stay here and only depend on this planet I believe they won't have much of one. You can't stay in the cradle forever. And we're already getting a little big for it now. It's really about the continuation of the human race. So we don't end up like the dinosaurs and a thousand other speices that have come and gone on this planet. How can you put a price on that?
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
What I attack is projects like Apollo and the space shuttle.
[quote]No you can't turn it around. The Space program by it's very nature generates reasearch in many areas. Far more than any single program would.<hr></blockquote>
This quote from you is an answer to two arguments I proposed. Let me take them seperate.
The multiple single program proposal: Noone have shown me any calculation that a grand program will generate more research than if the same money was spend on those areas directly. Please show me such a calculation. The burden is on you because logic says that the research AND the cost of blasting hundred feet high hardware 300000 km away and back exceeds the research alone. Without such proof it is impossible to argue further that way.
The "Find another grand project" proposal: A huge program here on earth would generate just as much research on different areas as the space program. There has been tons of proposals on how to make africa green, all of them not doable with current knowledge in technology, ecology and other areas. And IF we didn´t have sattelites before to monitor the development of the desert that would be a spin of effect of a green africa project.
Logic even say that now we have had two huge space programs more spin ofs could be generated if we have a grand project in another field.
And about Towels numbers: The development of Apollo and the space shuttle is not reflected in NASAs current spending. Its more or less a maitenance budget and a very low one according to to most observers. And I would like to know if the budget includes the military and private use of NASA facilities. Both are seperate from NASAs "core" budget.
Your last argument is more difficult to attack since it is a bit far out, someone going against it will look like he is not capable of imagine more than five years into the future and it is a moral and political question that you can´t use logic to determine. But my opinion is that the problems people here and is more important than an abstract humankind. I will rather use money to better the lifes of millions of people now that being able to spread a small sample of humankind to other planets some day (I really hope not you are expecting a massive evacuation of billions of people from earth when that time comes). I´ll rather clean the oceans here and now than lifting a few fish into aquariums when its too late to preserve "fishkind".
And lastly to Towel:
[quote]Having humans in space: Priceless <hr></blockquote>
Yes Space travel is a great adventure and you really can´t say adventures are worth so and so much. But what about human lifes? They are priceless too. So what do you do when you compare two priceless things?
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.
<strong>Let me clear one thing up first: I´m not against sending rockets into space. We need satellites to do various tasks. Its a well defined problem that we know a good solution to.
What I attack is projects like Apollo and the space shuttle.
Yes Space travel is a great adventure and you really can?t say adventures are worth so and so much. But what about human lifes? They are priceless too. So what do you do when you compare two priceless things?
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.</strong>[/QUOTE]
Ander's,
You are obviously a thinking and caring person. We both want a better place for mankind as whole to live in.
The fatal flaw in your logic is however........the same thing that has brought mankind to this place. The problem is that we haven't considered the future enough and what's to come based on our actions.
The early pioneers of this country were thinking that way when they began to clear cut forests. I imagine they thought something like " There will always be more trees and we've got all this stuff to build ". They're doing the same thing today in the Amazon rain forests.
I'm not saying you think this way. It's just that it's good to think about the here and now. But, it's far more important to think about the future.
It's been obvious to me for quite some time that our future is out there. And as time goes on the ultimate benefit to mankind will seem obvious. But, for right now for some that's difficult to understand.
I really don't expect to change your mind. For that we'd have to be here a hundred years from now looking back.
Its not that you are thinking about the future and I am not. We just see two different solutions in the future.
I´ll ask two simple questions:
1) Do you have any proof that the spin of effects are larger that if we spent the money on direct research? The "spin of" argument is widely used but I have never seen any calculations?
And since you are shifting from "spin of" to "Importent to go into space because humans one day will need to go there"
2) A moral/political one: Is it more important for humankind to spread its seeds (not a mass evacuation) into space in the future than save humans on the earth here and now AND in the future (remember 1500 lifes a day)
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>
The cost of clean water to every person in the world is US$50 billion per year. So the budget of the current space program could save more than one child every minute, 1500 per day. Suddenly I have no problems comapering two priceless things. And for those saying "well one doesn´t exclude the other and we could do both". But facts are we have chosen to have man in space and chosen not to save 1500 lifes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
\t
\tSo are you proposing that we diminish NASA?s already comparatively small budget to save lives and clean up the planet. I sympathize with the Idea of making the world a better place, but why NASA? Yeah I know, NASA is a big waste of money , they just piss the taxpayers money down the drain sending people up in rockets to spin around the earth for a few days only to have them burn up on reentry.
And I know we benefit so much from the information that wouldn't be possible if the government haven't have given grants for the research of pig shit. And I know you couldn?t compare the happiness that the postal employees enjoyed when they sent packages & cakes to each other, and rode around in limousines, to inspiration of a child seeing his first shuttle launch.
\t
And I know the proposal may sound trite, but what about all of the other money the government spends? Someone said earlier that the government spends the budget of NASA for welfare every eight days (much of that money goes to deadbeats and people that don?t want a job.) Now I?m not downing welfare, my family was on it for a brief period when I was a child, but pulled itself up using that awful thing called work.
\t
No NASA must cut it?s spending. Screw more abundant and efficient spending of foreign aid. Us Americans and the money that used to go to that useless space program are the only hope for those poor starving children that you seen on the TV commercials asking for a two cents a day, and the only hope for mankind.
Maybe I?m just a kid at heart, maybe I?m short sighted and just like the Idea of spaceships! VROOM VROOM. Or maybe I just don?t like the Idea of having all our eggs in this one basket that the solar system has a tendency to throw large rocks at.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: DiscoCow ]</p>
You know I was going to let it go after my last post. But after yours I have to say I've already proven what I've been saying. Other's have jumped in and helped my argument and you still won't pay attention to the facts.
That's why you've been hearing the nebulous descriptions of man's destiny and so forth ( not that stuff isn't important our " spirit " that is ). I realize no matter what I give you in the way of proof like a little kid you'll say " well why's that ? "
There is no point in pumping facts your way. You've already made up your mind. When Towel gave you those numbers that should have been enough.
And about spin offs not being important. I've already shown you how those advances would have taken a lot longer to develope or not even be discovered if it wasn't for the space program. I imagine the people who benifited from the medical advances alone would have a bone or two to pick with you.
About the nebulous stuff. We need new horizons to wonder about and aspire towards. It's what has kept our speices going all along if you haven't noticed.
Also in my lifetime so far the world's population has increased by leaps and bounds. We're already a billion over what the planet can comfortably hold. Your greening of Africa might help for a while but it isn't going to change that.
The only way earth is going to end up being anything but a smog choked, buildings and factorys wall to wall, garbage dump is if we turn our focus outward. You know we could do a lot just by putting our factorys in orbit. Mine the moon and the asteriod belt instead of using up every last resource here. They can't pollute or damage things up there. And no, I don't see a mass exodus from earth. But, as our population continues to grow ( and I don't see that changing ) some of us will still live here but some will live out there.
Yes Anders because they want to. Because of the research to be done. Because of the money to made. But, mostly because of expanding our horizons. To see what's over the next hill. We really can't do that here anymore. Not in the sense of the early pioneers.
But the argument is done. You haven't really countered anyone else's. You keep saying the space program' expensive. We've shown you it's not in comaparison to a lot of things. You started out with the old drone " Tang and Velcro " ( acctually it was velcro and GPS but the same idea applies ) I've shown you that's not true. Did you even read the earlier posts and links before you made that highly erronious statement?
I'm also thinking like most programs your greening of Africa is going to cost a lot more than you think. Programs have a way of over running their budgets when you can't anticipate everything. By your own admission you're dealing with a lot of new technologys there. And I'd bet it would cost a mint to develope and maintain. Probably much more than any single project for the space program. But, unlike you I'm not claiming your proposal isn't a good idea.
But I know you are so pigeon holed you can't see anything else. You can't help someone to see what's around when they've got blinders on. So believe what you will but you know you won't win converts to your goals by ignoring their facts. And really you've been supplied with plenty. Sorry if you can't see the truth but it's your loss.
I feel this with conviction that if we don't destroy ourselves in the mean time. People a hundred years or so from now will look back and sadly shake their heads at attitudes like yours. Their questions will be something like : " How did they think we could get along without space commerce, exploration, and travel ".
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>