One more thing : DiscoCow has a good point. Right now we have no good defense or plan of action if a stray asteriod or comet should come our way. Statistics show in the scheme of things this does happen quite frequently. And we are over due for a large impact. Only by developing space travel can we come up with a way to avert disaster or at least save some part of the human race. To ignore this is foolish. The fact that errosion hides the older impacts here is misleading. The moon reads like a book of large impacts.
It's happened many times here. about every twenty five millon years there is a large extinction of life here. A lot of evidence would suggest it's due to an impact event. And we're over due right now.
The fact that there are large amounts of time involved is no reason to sit on our hands and say " Well that's a long way off. We'll worry about that when it happens ". That's too late. We do know one thing. It will happen.
Looking at these things is part of holding our head upward for a change. It's about noticing what's going on around us and realizing our real place in the universe.
They could be right in the middle of your africa project and whoosh! All gone.
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.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, another peddler of misinformation.
Charles Stark Draper is "The father of Inertial Navigation" having developed it in the 40's. It was 1949 or 50 when he demonstrated it, the same year that Cape Canaveral launched their first ever rocket. We didn't go to the Moon until 1969, long after INS was being used in practically every large ship and plane on the planet.
However, that is not to say that the Space program didn't eventually try to improve it.
Charles Stark Draper is "The father of Inertial Navigation" having developed it in the 40's. It was 1949 or 50 when he demonstrated it, the same year that Cape Canaveral launched their first ever rocket. We didn't go to the Moon until 1969, long after INS was being used in practically every large ship and plane on the planet.
However, that is not to say that the Space program didn't eventually try to improve it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So instead of adressing my questions you turn this into "well there is something wrong with you Anders". <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So first let me counter the more factual part of what you say about me:
[quote] You started out with the old drone " Tang and Velcro " I've shown you that's not true. Did you even read the earlier posts and links before you made that highly erronious statement?<hr></blockquote>
I didn´t say that "Tang and Velcro" was the only spin offs. I made it clear with my second post that was I meant with "Velcro and GPS" was all spin offs. I don´t understand why you bring this up again.
[quote]And about spin offs not being important.<hr></blockquote>
I never said that. Don´t put words into my mouth. I merely subjected it to a cost/benefit-analysis.
[quote]When Towel gave you those numbers that should have been enough .... You keep saying the space program' expensive. We've shown you it's not in comparison to a lot of things. <hr></blockquote>
I adress the numbers given by Towel directly. In comparison to the total use of ice cream the space program isn´t expensive. But compared to what it takes to keep people alive it is. If you dedicated the money to water supply for those who don´t have access to fresh water it could prevent one world trade center tower filled with kids from being crushed each day. But look below for a more thoroughly argument about costs.
Let me try to put this on track again. I have tried to clean up the discussion so far. Please adress it this way.
Your main argument:It is wise to spent more money on space programs like Apollo and the the Shuttle.
Argument 1 (as I here it): The spin offs from great space projects are of more value than what we fill into them.
Counterargument 1.1: No. There is a lot of spin offs but noone have proved that the spin offs are of more value than the money spent (Despite what you say you have proven zip. Examples aren´t enough. numbers are)
Counterargument 1.2: Noone have shown why the same solutions couldn´t have been found much cheaper if the money had been spent directly on the problems and
Counterargument 1.3: Logic says that the return is much lower than the money spent since alongside the research we still need to actually build the rocket and send those people up to the moon/build the space shuttles with all the training and hardware needed.
Counterargument 1.4: Nowhere is it said that huge projects that delivers spin offs has to take place in space. To dive into an earth project with just as many unknowns as the Apollo projects had will likely give as many spin offs and probably more since we did the space thing twice.
Argument 2: We need to go have huge space programs since we will have to leave the planet due to comets hitting us.
Counterargument 2.1: No we don´t because a dedicated program that take care of such an event would be more economical sound than one huge that perhaps will make a comet catching system as a spin off.
Counterargument 2.2: A cost benefit analysis show that if all life is abolished each 25 million year that accounts for mere 240 people a year.
Argument 3: We need to go have a huge space program since we will have to leave this planet because we are using up its natural ressources.
Counterargument 3.1: If the money used on a huge space program was used on huge earth programs instead we could prevent the natural ressources from being inadecuate.
Counterargument 3.2: Given the right amount of welfare the population would stagnate (draining less on our ressources).
Counterargument 3.3: If we are to start production in space the green house effect will accelerate due to the transportation up and down from earth.
Argument 4: With regards to counterargument 2.2 you can´t compare the possible destruction of humankind with the destruction of humans.
Counterargument 4.1: That is a moral question. Are we prepared to sacrifice people now and in the future for the possible suvival of humankind? If we need to go somewhere else to live it won´t be everybody on earth that will go. Only very few (perhaps thousands but not close to millions). Its open for discussion what is worth most: A huge space program will PERHAPS be able to save a few speciments of humankind at some point in the future while a huge earth program will save millions each year.
Please add arguments and go against my counterarguments. It will make everything more easy and it have taken some time to put together.
Anders these story of NASA and Water do not make sense.
Instead of buying a new powerbook do you consider to give the money to poor people in the world in order to save lifes : i dont know for you but i said no for my-self. I work for my-self not for giving money to others people. Sometimes, like many people i do something to help .
We are not obliged to help the others. If we do it : it's great, if we do nothing it's neutral, if we try to make them more poor it's evil.
It can looks simplistic, but i am opposed to make appear someone guilty if he spent his money for him-self. Same applies for countries.
Powerdoc. I agree. But the argument I am going against is that the spin offs are of so great and multiple value that they themself justify the space program. Im trying to make the point that 1) that is not the case and 2) if the objective is practical use then a great earth project would be of much more use.
IF the argument was the adventure of going into space then I would buy that but people here claim that that is not the case.
[quote]Nowhere is it said that huge projects that delivers spin offs has to take place in space.
Logic says that the return is much lower than the money spent since alongside the research we still need to actually build the rocket and send those people up to the moon/build the space shuttles with all the training and hardware needed.<hr></blockquote>
Weightlessness can be useful for growing high purity crystals. Acheiving perfect vacuum conditions on earth is quite tricky. Any more, anyone (that aren't related to space travel itself)?
The space missions provide impetus for the design and production of these "spin-offs", and rigorous testing. You can't just claim that they would have been designed anyway: in what timescale?
Comets etc..
[quote]A cost benefit analysis show that if all life is abolished each 25 million year that accounts for mere 240 people a year.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe, but the cost benefit analysis is of no use to you if you're one of the unlucky. This is a bit like saying insurance is useless.
[quote]A huge space program will PERHAPS be able to save a few speciments of humankind at some point in the future while a huge earth program will save millions each year.<hr></blockquote>
The earth will not last forever nor will we be able to deflect every planet killer threat. It's also easy to say that off world travel will remain the domain of the super rich, but it may be that off world travel becomes common when technology advances sufficiently. We just don't know.
[quote]No we don´t because a dedicated program that take care of such an event would be more economical sound than one huge that perhaps will make a comet catching system as a spin off.<hr></blockquote>
You've got to lay the groundwork for delivering payloads into space. Furthermore, a specialised solution is too limited and shortsighted: general solutions are more adaptable.
Natural resource use:
[quote]Counterargument 3.1: If the money used on a huge space program was used on huge earth programs instead we could prevent the natural ressources from being inadecuate.
Counterargument 3.2: Given the right amount of welfare the population would stagnate (draining less on our ressources).
Counterargument 3.3: If we are to start production in space the green house effect will accelerate due to the transportation up and down from earth.
<hr></blockquote>
You can't just solve all of the world's problems by throwing money at them, especially with the rather small budget of space agencies (compared to health services, military spending, etc...) Especially when economic politics are involved.
Also, you can't just educate people to have 2.x children to maintain a stable population.
Space travel's impact on greenhouse gases is a drop in the ocean compared to power stations, cows, traffic etc...
<strong>Powerdoc. I agree. But the argument I am going against is that the spin offs are of so great and multiple value that they themself justify the space program. Im trying to make the point that 1) that is not the case and 2) if the objective is practical use then a great earth project would be of much more use.
IF the argument was the adventure of going into space then I would buy that but people here claim that that is not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah but's so much more as I've illustrated. Also the great earth project being of more use is just your opinion nothing more.
" Counterargument 2.1: No we don´t because a dedicated program that take care of such an event would be more economical sound than one huge that perhaps will make a comet catching system as a spin off. "
This one's just dumb.What if we can't take care of it? Then everybody dies. There's no way to gather experience at this other than going up there getting it.
It's not as simple as blowing it up. Small chunks can do as much if not more damage if it's not done right. Also it might be more practical to divert it. But, you see no one's done this yet so there's that experience thing again. And before you start this is something that can't be done by unmanned satellites alone.
At least if we are capable of manned space flight then some will survive. This could happen in a few hundred years or tomorrow. But, if we don't get started now we won't be ready. And Anders this is just one argument.
I don't think many are buying your arguments as they don't exactly hold water.
" Counterargument 3.3: If we are to start production in space the green house effect will accelerate due to the transportation up and down from earth. "
Oh my god! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
" Argument 4: With regards to counterargument 2.2 you can´t compare the possible destruction of humankind with the destruction of humans. Counterargument 4.1: That is a moral question. Are we prepared to sacrifice people now and in the future for the possible suvival of humankind? If we need to go somewhere else to live it won´t be everybody on earth that will go. Only very few (perhaps thousands but not close to millions). Its open for discussion what is worth most: A huge space program will PERHAPS be able to save a few speciments of humankind at some point in the future while a huge earth program will save millions each year. "
That's right play on their sympathies. It's a real stretch for you to connect these two in the first place. Once again this is just one argument for space travel. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
" Counterargument 2.2: A cost benefit analysis show that if all life is abolished each 25 million year that accounts for mere 240 people a year. "
Where the hell did you get this one? Besides when it happens they don't get wiped out a little at a time. It's all at once. Well, maybe a few unlucky ones survive to die of exposure and starvation. And remember we don't even have a good tracking system for these things. One could be upon us in no time. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
" Counterargument 1.3: Logic says that the return is much lower than the money spent since alongside the research we still need to actually build the rocket and send those people up to the moon/build the space shuttles with all the training and hardware needed. "
" Counterargument 3.1: If the money used on a huge space program was used on huge earth programs instead we could prevent the natural ressources from being inadecuate. "
This one's extra dumb. Some say we have only about 150 years left before the most used raw materials run out. Some nonrenewable. In some cases we're already past the point of no return. I'll leave the laugh sign out as I feel pretty bad about this one.
Comments
It's happened many times here. about every twenty five millon years there is a large extinction of life here. A lot of evidence would suggest it's due to an impact event. And we're over due right now.
The fact that there are large amounts of time involved is no reason to sit on our hands and say " Well that's a long way off. We'll worry about that when it happens ". That's too late. We do know one thing. It will happen.
Looking at these things is part of holding our head upward for a change. It's about noticing what's going on around us and realizing our real place in the universe.
They could be right in the middle of your africa project and whoosh! All gone.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I like spaceships and vroom, vroom also! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>...
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.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, another peddler of misinformation.
Charles Stark Draper is "The father of Inertial Navigation" having developed it in the 40's. It was 1949 or 50 when he demonstrated it, the same year that Cape Canaveral launched their first ever rocket. We didn't go to the Moon until 1969, long after INS was being used in practically every large ship and plane on the planet.
However, that is not to say that the Space program didn't eventually try to improve it.
<strong>
Gee, another peddler of misinformation.
Charles Stark Draper is "The father of Inertial Navigation" having developed it in the 40's. It was 1949 or 50 when he demonstrated it, the same year that Cape Canaveral launched their first ever rocket. We didn't go to the Moon until 1969, long after INS was being used in practically every large ship and plane on the planet.
However, that is not to say that the Space program didn't eventually try to improve it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Try to improve it? Give it up already.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
So first let me counter the more factual part of what you say about me:
[quote] You started out with the old drone " Tang and Velcro " I've shown you that's not true. Did you even read the earlier posts and links before you made that highly erronious statement?<hr></blockquote>
I didn´t say that "Tang and Velcro" was the only spin offs. I made it clear with my second post that was I meant with "Velcro and GPS" was all spin offs. I don´t understand why you bring this up again.
[quote]And about spin offs not being important.<hr></blockquote>
I never said that. Don´t put words into my mouth. I merely subjected it to a cost/benefit-analysis.
[quote]When Towel gave you those numbers that should have been enough .... You keep saying the space program' expensive. We've shown you it's not in comparison to a lot of things. <hr></blockquote>
I adress the numbers given by Towel directly. In comparison to the total use of ice cream the space program isn´t expensive. But compared to what it takes to keep people alive it is. If you dedicated the money to water supply for those who don´t have access to fresh water it could prevent one world trade center tower filled with kids from being crushed each day. But look below for a more thoroughly argument about costs.
Let me try to put this on track again. I have tried to clean up the discussion so far. Please adress it this way.
Your main argument:It is wise to spent more money on space programs like Apollo and the the Shuttle.
Argument 1 (as I here it): The spin offs from great space projects are of more value than what we fill into them.
Counterargument 1.1: No. There is a lot of spin offs but noone have proved that the spin offs are of more value than the money spent (Despite what you say you have proven zip. Examples aren´t enough. numbers are)
Counterargument 1.2: Noone have shown why the same solutions couldn´t have been found much cheaper if the money had been spent directly on the problems and
Counterargument 1.3: Logic says that the return is much lower than the money spent since alongside the research we still need to actually build the rocket and send those people up to the moon/build the space shuttles with all the training and hardware needed.
Counterargument 1.4: Nowhere is it said that huge projects that delivers spin offs has to take place in space. To dive into an earth project with just as many unknowns as the Apollo projects had will likely give as many spin offs and probably more since we did the space thing twice.
Argument 2: We need to go have huge space programs since we will have to leave the planet due to comets hitting us.
Counterargument 2.1: No we don´t because a dedicated program that take care of such an event would be more economical sound than one huge that perhaps will make a comet catching system as a spin off.
Counterargument 2.2: A cost benefit analysis show that if all life is abolished each 25 million year that accounts for mere 240 people a year.
Argument 3: We need to go have a huge space program since we will have to leave this planet because we are using up its natural ressources.
Counterargument 3.1: If the money used on a huge space program was used on huge earth programs instead we could prevent the natural ressources from being inadecuate.
Counterargument 3.2: Given the right amount of welfare the population would stagnate (draining less on our ressources).
Counterargument 3.3: If we are to start production in space the green house effect will accelerate due to the transportation up and down from earth.
Argument 4: With regards to counterargument 2.2 you can´t compare the possible destruction of humankind with the destruction of humans.
Counterargument 4.1: That is a moral question. Are we prepared to sacrifice people now and in the future for the possible suvival of humankind? If we need to go somewhere else to live it won´t be everybody on earth that will go. Only very few (perhaps thousands but not close to millions). Its open for discussion what is worth most: A huge space program will PERHAPS be able to save a few speciments of humankind at some point in the future while a huge earth program will save millions each year.
Please add arguments and go against my counterarguments. It will make everything more easy and it have taken some time to put together.
Instead of buying a new powerbook do you consider to give the money to poor people in the world in order to save lifes : i dont know for you but i said no for my-self. I work for my-self not for giving money to others people. Sometimes, like many people i do something to help .
We are not obliged to help the others. If we do it : it's great, if we do nothing it's neutral, if we try to make them more poor it's evil.
It can looks simplistic, but i am opposed to make appear someone guilty if he spent his money for him-self. Same applies for countries.
IF the argument was the adventure of going into space then I would buy that but people here claim that that is not the case.
<a href="http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=275DBFD4-2F50-42D2-AB1D65CB34E2B64E"; target="_blank">VOA Shuttle Article</a>
[quote]Nowhere is it said that huge projects that delivers spin offs has to take place in space.
Logic says that the return is much lower than the money spent since alongside the research we still need to actually build the rocket and send those people up to the moon/build the space shuttles with all the training and hardware needed.<hr></blockquote>
Weightlessness can be useful for growing high purity crystals. Acheiving perfect vacuum conditions on earth is quite tricky. Any more, anyone (that aren't related to space travel itself)?
The space missions provide impetus for the design and production of these "spin-offs", and rigorous testing. You can't just claim that they would have been designed anyway: in what timescale?
Comets etc..
[quote]A cost benefit analysis show that if all life is abolished each 25 million year that accounts for mere 240 people a year.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe, but the cost benefit analysis is of no use to you if you're one of the unlucky. This is a bit like saying insurance is useless.
[quote]A huge space program will PERHAPS be able to save a few speciments of humankind at some point in the future while a huge earth program will save millions each year.<hr></blockquote>
The earth will not last forever nor will we be able to deflect every planet killer threat. It's also easy to say that off world travel will remain the domain of the super rich, but it may be that off world travel becomes common when technology advances sufficiently. We just don't know.
[quote]No we don´t because a dedicated program that take care of such an event would be more economical sound than one huge that perhaps will make a comet catching system as a spin off.<hr></blockquote>
You've got to lay the groundwork for delivering payloads into space. Furthermore, a specialised solution is too limited and shortsighted: general solutions are more adaptable.
Natural resource use:
[quote]Counterargument 3.1: If the money used on a huge space program was used on huge earth programs instead we could prevent the natural ressources from being inadecuate.
Counterargument 3.2: Given the right amount of welfare the population would stagnate (draining less on our ressources).
Counterargument 3.3: If we are to start production in space the green house effect will accelerate due to the transportation up and down from earth.
<hr></blockquote>
You can't just solve all of the world's problems by throwing money at them, especially with the rather small budget of space agencies (compared to health services, military spending, etc...) Especially when economic politics are involved.
Also, you can't just educate people to have 2.x children to maintain a stable population.
Space travel's impact on greenhouse gases is a drop in the ocean compared to power stations, cows, traffic etc...
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
<strong>Powerdoc. I agree. But the argument I am going against is that the spin offs are of so great and multiple value that they themself justify the space program. Im trying to make the point that 1) that is not the case and 2) if the objective is practical use then a great earth project would be of much more use.
IF the argument was the adventure of going into space then I would buy that but people here claim that that is not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah but's so much more as I've illustrated. Also the great earth project being of more use is just your opinion nothing more.
This one's just dumb.What if we can't take care of it? Then everybody dies. There's no way to gather experience at this other than going up there getting it.
It's not as simple as blowing it up. Small chunks can do as much if not more damage if it's not done right. Also it might be more practical to divert it. But, you see no one's done this yet so there's that experience thing again. And before you start this is something that can't be done by unmanned satellites alone.
At least if we are capable of manned space flight then some will survive. This could happen in a few hundred years or tomorrow. But, if we don't get started now we won't be ready. And Anders this is just one argument.
I don't think many are buying your arguments as they don't exactly hold water.
" probably more since we did the space thing twice ".
This attitude of yours is just laughable. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Oh my god! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That's right play on their sympathies. It's a real stretch for you to connect these two in the first place. Once again this is just one argument for space travel. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Where the hell did you get this one? Besides when it happens they don't get wiped out a little at a time. It's all at once. Well, maybe a few unlucky ones survive to die of exposure and starvation. And remember we don't even have a good tracking system for these things. One could be upon us in no time. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Who's logic? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
This one's extra dumb. Some say we have only about 150 years left before the most used raw materials run out. Some nonrenewable. In some cases we're already past the point of no return. I'll leave the laugh sign out as I feel pretty bad about this one.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>About the rest : Throws hands in the air and shakes head.
How's the old noggin, jimmac? Looks to me like you're banging your head against a wall or something...
You could hurt yourself that way...
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>