 |
| |
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And good for us, because people's lives have been improved by manned space flight. More people are alive because of the medical technology that has resulted directly from manned space flight. People are more productive because of computers, the development of which was masssively improved because of manned space flight. |
If you want to prove that statement you would have to prove that the same (or equivalent) advances couldn't have been made by spending the money on other research.
quote:
The only people who are opposed to manned space flight are those who are ignorant about it. |
I am opposed to it, and I think I probably know quite a bit more about research than you do. I also know a lot of people (even people within NASA) who would agree with me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
WTF???
I can barely believe you just asked what the "history lesson" had to do with NASA (cost-effective or not...which, btw, was not your orignal point...you said NASA is a waste of funds, period....actually, "exclamation point" - I ain't makin' it up....it's your title, after all) 
So....if you genuinely don't know the answer to that question, here goes:
#1) Science is a good thing. Science makes it possible for people to live longer, fuller, more productive lives. It makes it possible to create plants (food for starving children, for example) that can grow anywhere humans live--middle of a freakin' sand trap, on top of a snow-capped mountain, you name it). Science pushes back the darkness, and illuminates our world with understanding.
#2) Exploration is a good thing. If not for exploration, then the whole of the world's population would be living either in Africa, or in Asia, depending on who you read. But human beings have this in-born need to explore....to find out what's over the next hill....and that has served us very well. It has brought about discoveries that we would not have made had we "stayed home."
#3) You have to walk before you run. Exploration and science is well and good, but you cannot expect a six-year-old in his sandbox to make the next generation's space vehicles....so you start small. You start with unmanned rockets....get that right, move up the ladder to bigger and better rockets, multi-staged rockets that deliver unmanned probes as payload, and so forth, until at last, your understanding is good enough to put real, living breathing humans in space. And then, you practice. You practice, because it ain't easy putting real, living breathing humans into space. Very dangerous.
So was sailing across the atlantic, but using history as a guide, even if we don't know precisely what the payoff is, it's out there. We need only the courage to grasp it.
I do not mean to insult you in any way, but this stuff ain't exactly "rocket science," you know?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
The same people who are crying "NASA is a waste" now will probably be the ones crying the loudest if America ever loses it's space superiority.
Hard to argue that defense spending is more or less important than space spending, since NASA itself is a major asset in America's defense system. Even though it rarely makes the news, shuttle flights are often involved in properly launching or repairing sensitive intel satelites.
Control of space is something that is very much on the Pentagon's agenda tight now, and has been for a long time. They are very much of the view that battles will at some point be fought in space, and are preparing to do so. On the ground, GPS systems and satelite mapping are the backbone of our modernized military.
The scientific community, the Pentagon and military contractors are very much behind NASA, so I doubt you will see a major reduction in our space commitment.
Check these links for the military's position on outer space
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/p187.pdf
http://www.space.com/news/dod_space_011008.html
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/D...ce.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space...rt/1992/GJA.htm
Edit: repaired link
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know if that's true. I'd say that businesses would start taking a greater share in practical research if the gov't stopped subsidizing it. They don't have much motivation to pay for it themselves since the gov't is footing the bill. |
At this point, the US government has no desire to release control of space into the public domain. They are working in conjunction with Lockheed to develop high atmosphere planes and several other smaller companies on similar ventures.
It's reached the point where private firms are becoming interested in developing these things on their own, and the government is about to shift more responsibilities to them. This is the history of nearly every technological innovation America has ever had.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Static Universe
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Docfeelgood
I git the feeling that space exploration is a pissingcontest with the rest of the world.
I ask again. Why should space be exclusive American domain?
Is this what it is all about?
I thought space exploration was to benefit mankind and all that BS. |
The beauty of NASA is that's it's a pissingcontest that benefits the rest of the world.
Space shouldn't be exclusively American, but the American gov't and military see it as vital to their security that it be so. They don't mind sharing it, but don't want it shared with them, know what I mean?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2003 23:24
|