|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
04-15-2010, 03:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I was merely extending that line of reasoning, that if government expenditure should have "value", then clearly spending a sum of money for something in return is better than getting nothing. One example of getting nothing -- in fact, getting less people to work through subsidies -- is the current implementation of the welfare program. 
|
|
#2
04-15-2010, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
but in the meantime can you drop the straw man argument about a critcism of the space program in general? or maybe just show me where i wasn't specific about manned missions?
|
|
#3
04-15-2010, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
04-15-2010, 04:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Probes and robots are great and for some missions, especially to the outer solar system, they are pretty much the only way to go. But sensors on those probes, landers, and unmanned vehicles only measure what they are designed to measure. As an analogy, think of it this way: you are the custodian or security guard at a facility, and you are patrolling it. Remote sensors and cameras can tell operators if anything is moving, what the temperature is, humidity, etc. But it would take a security guard walking the halls to say, "I smell something -- there might be a gas leak and we'd better call the gas company and fire department." Only a human can gain information that we are surprised by -- the same information could not anticipate so as to design an adequate unmanned vehicle.
|
|
#5
04-15-2010, 08:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"The observations of guys like Alan Shepherd and John Glenn were critical in getting subjective as well as objective feedback for vehicle design."
vehicle design to be human rated. this is the same as arguing that we must launch chocolate bars into space in order to determine the proper design for the safe return of chocolate bars from their missions in space. it's a circular argument. "A man on the moon can observe, "This place is clearly not made up of green cheese." It clearly would be harder and would take longer to build unmanned craft for the same purpose, though unmanned craft would cost less per mission and would be expendable." that part is just wrong. it clearly would be easier and take less time (since you no longer have to worry about a craft being human rated) to get a robotic craft designed to distinguish mineral from cheese. robots extend our ability to make observations. they don't change the quality of those observations. there's nothing an astronaut is going to see on mars that wouldn't be shown just as clearly and much cheaper by a robot. "Also, much of the advancement that flourished out of the space program came from the drive to miniturize the systems to acceptable weights. The part that drove that weight requirement was the distance to the moon, and the fact that the living and breathing astronauts needed all the systems to sustain them, and the space, maneuverability and redundancy to make sure that they had the highest chance of performing their mission and surviving." this isn't a bad response. it's essentially true that some of the drive to miniaturize was driven by a human space program. i'd give it maybe 0.01% of the overall credit. the invention of the transistor and later the integrated circuit had nothing to do with manned space flight and i'd say those had far more impact. whatever credit you want to give it you need to weigh it against the enormous ongoing cost of human space flight. "As an analogy, think of it this way: you are the custodian or security guard at a facility, and you are patrolling it. Remote sensors and cameras can tell operators if anything is moving, what the temperature is, humidity, etc. But it would take a security guard walking the halls to say, "I smell something -- there might be a gas leak and we'd better call the gas company and fire department."" or an engineer smart enough to build a sensor for methane. and even if you built all that stuff and forgot the methane sensor, it's still cheaper to build another probe and launch it later than pay what it takes to keep a security guard alive on mars. tl,dr? i don't blame you. i'll make it short. going to mars will wind up costing near a trillion dollars before it's done. if we're lucky. to what end? get over star trek. start investing in real science.
|
|
#6
04-15-2010, 09:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So we're going to disagree. That's OK.
I liked the chocolate bar logic. Interesting way to look at it. Is the trillion we'd spend for Mars the same trillion we're throwing down the toilet on the health care mess? Not really asking, just another way of looking at what $1T gets you.
|
|
#7
04-15-2010, 09:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
stop derailing your own thread. if you don't like it anymore, stop posting. if you post, stay on point. it's an author's duty. i just find it fascinating (picture spock pronouncing that) that a fiscal conservative like yourself linked the article. normally you'd be against government spending billions for little to no apparent benefit. who'd think a libtard like me would think obama should have gone further to cut wasteful government spending?
|
|
#8
04-16-2010, 06:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The space program HAS had benefits. Many of them are less related to the destination than the challenges in getting there. And I didn't call you any names, so don't call yourself one either.
|
|
#9
04-15-2010, 10:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
jeez, is anything not about welfare with you people? We're talking about space and it takes you all of two posts to shoehorn welfare into the conversation.
Hybrid Mode
