04-02-2003 09:46									#181
	Inflate your Upload Space

Fine, fine...but admit it, you would have secretly, in the blackest recesses of your teeny-weeny heart, have enjoyed seeing such a thread up on the OT, even if just for a few minutes.

	04-02-2003 09:47									#182
	Tired of ads?

Ming, the keeper of law and order .

Damn, since seeing the new 'Dragnet', I can picture Ming talking like Ed O'Neill .

	04-02-2003 11:08									#183
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I have not had time to read all the posts in here. BUt I for one do not think NASA is a waste of money, in fact I think too little money is spent on NASA.

Some one has to make the first steps into space, and like many other explorations that man has done throughout history they are dangerous and many died. What if no one wanted to sail across the ocean in the 1500's?? WHat would life be like now?? Ocean travel would have never been improved if it were not for those first explores who risked their lifes to explore the world arround them.

THe same with space travel. Right now it is very dangerous and people will die in their efforts to explore space. There are so many things to learn in this Universe that it would be sad that we allow a few deaths to stop it. It we do we will never be able to learn more about the Universe arround us.

As we go into space more and do more resreach space travel will get much safer. Look at the first airplanes that were built. Many were not all that safe, and if we allowed that danger to stop flight all togather we would have never have the kind of planes we have today along with there great safety record. I mean we take risks just getting into the car and driving to work, but we do not let these risks stop us from riding in a car.

NASA is there to explore space, to learn about the wonderfull universe we live in, to expand human knowledge. It is not a waste and I think that we need it more then ever before.

	04-02-2003 11:15									#184
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: THe same with space travel. Right now it is very dangerous and people will die in their efforts to explore space. There are so many things to learn in this Universe that it would be sad that we allow a few deaths to stop it. It we do we will never be able to learn more about the Universe arround us.

you worded much better what i was kinda trying to say earlier

	04-02-2003 11:44									#185
	Got spare money?

Foolish Post deleted

	04-02-2003 11:53									#186
	Put an end to popups!

I think Space travel is not the way to go, loom we already have that Stargate thingy just need to dig it up

What we really should do is invest in time travel. Then if we really want to all we have to do is go into the future and hence space travel, or better stillwe can go to the past and my historical therories on aliens owning the world and humans being slaves will be proved right!

	04-02-2003 12:00									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Reconstructing Iraq will be a waste of money. Gee, it's a dictatorship that makes aggression against everyone around it and kills its own people. Boo hoo. It's been so for hundreds of years.

Space exploration is not a waste of money. Successes in space lead to revitalization of science on Earth. America's destiny waits among the stars.

	04-02-2003 12:07									#188
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Space might seem like a "waste" of money in the short term, but not in the medium and/or long term.

The less money you put in it, the longer it'll take for greater benefits to appear, and for skeptics to recognize them.

And well...it's such a tiny part of the budget (yes, it has already been said), that even doubling it shouldn't be much of an issue.

For example, you could take a couple of billions off defense, it's not like anyone spends 3/4 as much as the U.S. in that area right now, IIRC .

	04-02-2003 19:05									#189
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think we can all agree that the US is spending far too much money on the military, but that is another issue. I think we can also all agree that the budget for fundamental science research should be multiplied by a factor of 10 at least. But that is not the issue either.

The point is, how should we prioritise our research? Given a fixed pot of money, how much should we spend on manned space exploration, keeping in mind that every cent we spend on it takes money away from other research.

Imho, the manned space programme is too expensive for the return we get. We do not get the same level of advances out of manned spce flight as we would get spending the money on, for example, a cure for cancer, or particle physics ( ) or even unmanned probes.

If ol' GW were to announce tomorrow that the US military budget was now going to be spent only on scientific research, I would be one of the most strident manned space flight supporters. But let's face it, it isn't going to happen. So with limited funds, we must prioritise - and I say that means axing manned space flight.

	04-02-2003 20:09									#190
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think we can all agree that the US is spending far too much money on the military, but that is another issue.

Nope. Don't think we can all agree on that. The US is spending a moderate amount on the military.

I think we can also all agree that the budget for fundamental science research should be multiplied by a factor of 10 at least

Nope. Don't think we can all agree on that. I would prefer to have any extra money returned to the taxpayers, thanks.

The point is, how should we prioritise our research?

Yep.

	04-02-2003 20:21									#191
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DanS Nope. Don't think we can all agree on that. The US is spending a moderate amount on the military.

50% of the total budget, you call that a moderate amount?

	04-02-2003 20:27									#192
	Increase Your PM Length

I dont think the USA spends half its buget on millitary, but it does spend a lot on it. Anther thing eats up a lot of money each year too is the interest payments on the 5 trillion dollar debt. If we could get rid of this stupid debt their would be more money to spend.

	04-02-2003 20:29									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

3% of GDP is WELL in the middle.

After all, it isn't like we spend the most on military spending as a percentage of GDP.

	04-02-2003 20:30									#194
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hey....that's SIX trillion in debt!

But seriously....yeah, it's a big number, and yeah, it looks ugly....but it really isn't all that bad. No more debilitating than a guy making 90k a year with a 60k mortgage.

Does he pay a good hunk of cash every year in interest? Yep.

Will it bankrupt him? Nope.

-=Vel=-

	04-02-2003 20:34									#195
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I never said it would bankrupt the USA, only that we waste so much money on the interest payments, that reducing the debt would be a good thing.

	04-02-2003 20:34									#196
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui 3% of GDP is WELL in the middle. After all, it isn't like we spend the most on military spending as a percentage of GDP.

More like 4-4.5%

And yes, congratulations: you spend less than North Korea does.

	04-02-2003 20:36									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And less than Iraq, and Saudi, and a healthy chunk of other nations.

We are pretty well middle of the road.

Of course, what makes it LOOK bigger is that our economy is several times bigger than most.

When you're cranking at 9Trillion or so GDP, and the guy you're in a p*ssing contest with is sitting at 2...is it much of a contest?

-=Vel=-

	04-02-2003 20:42									#198
	Get a bigger avatar today!

50% of the total budget, you call that a moderate amount?

50% of the discretionary federal budget, or 4% of the economy. Yes, I call that a moderate amount.

	04-02-2003 21:40									#199
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

As has been previously mentioned, the USAF has a space budget comparable to NASA's.

So what have they done with that money? As much as NASA has achieved? I doubt it.

And, Rogan, I've noticed that you're often unsympathetic towards scientific research that's too far removed from your own field. Can you explain why finding the Higgs boson or string theory would benefit humanity, whereas investigating the geology of Mars will not? You can't do that effectively with robot probes that take ages to respond to commands from Earth (lightspeed lag) or have the onboard intelligence of an insect. You need geologists on the scene.

Besisdes, space exploration isn't just about research. It is also, ultimately, about colonization.

To those who dismiss the Moon and Mars as "lifeless balls of rock": check out the history of European attempts to colonize the Americas. Colony after colony failed. Vinland, Jamestown, the one left by Columbus, various others: for a long time, the only really successful ones were those funded by plundered gold. So should the Americas have been written off as an "uninhabitable" or "non-viable" continents?

	04-02-2003 21:43									#200
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So what have they done with that money? As much as NASA has achieved? I doubt it.

You will have ample opportunity to judge when Powell gives evidence on Iraq tomorrow.

	04-02-2003 21:56									#201
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spy satellites. Probably put into orbit on NASA shuttles or on rockets using NASA technology (maybe even designed by NASA).

That's about it.

I don't think that matches NASA's record of achievement.

	04-02-2003 21:58									#202
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

dp

	04-02-2003 22:01									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Probably put into orbit on NASA shuttles or on rockets using NASA technology (maybe even designed by NASA)

Nope. Put on unmanned Air Force rockets and designed by the Air Force and others in the intelligence community.

	04-02-2003 22:05									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The bigger ones were launched by NASA. There were shuttle flights with classified military cargoes.

	04-02-2003 22:15									#205
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Don't think shuttle has done anything military for a decade.

	04-02-2003 23:15									#206
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless And, Rogan, I've noticed that you're often unsympathetic towards scientific research that's too far removed from your own field. Can you explain why finding the Higgs boson or string theory would benefit humanity, whereas investigating the geology of Mars will not? You can't do that effectively with robot probes that take ages to respond to commands from Earth (lightspeed lag) or have the onboard intelligence of an insect. You need geologists on the scene.

I think investigating the geology of Mars would be great. But there are two provisos.

First of all, that is not what we are doing - we are doing experiments on rats in freefall and such. Of course, things like weightlessness have to be researched before we could make a manned mission to Mars, but I really get the feeling that going to Mars is not what NASA is aiming for. Anyway, why not investigate the geology of the Moon first? If they were planning on going to Mars anytime soon, they would have been back to the moon by now. It is now 30 years since we were last there!

Secondly, there is the cost. As I said earlier, it is a matter of priorities. What is more important to you - studying the geology of Mars or finding a cure for cancer? I know which one I would pick.

Things like the Higgs boson and String Theory are important to research because they are fundamental physics. If we learn something new at a fundamental level there is a 'trickle down' to applied physics over time. For example, the quantum mechanics early last centuary looked pretty useless but now we see applications in quantum computing. Were the applications of electricity obvious when it was discovered?

If we were able to fully understand where mass comes from we might be able to supress its effects enough to travel at or near light-speed. For that matter, understanding string theory might eventually lead to the ability to make and control wormholes (Stargate anyone?). All the new applications coming out of heavy ion physics is because of the particle physics experiments done in the 60s and 70s.

And particle physics is actually not very expensive for what you get.

quote: Besisdes, space exploration isn't just about research. It is also, ultimately, about colonization. To those who dismiss the Moon and Mars as "lifeless balls of rock": check out the history of European attempts to colonize the Americas. Colony after colony failed. Vinland, Jamestown, the one left by Columbus, various others: for a long time, the only really successful ones were those funded by plundered gold. So should the Americas have been written off as an "uninhabitable" or "non-viable" continents?

It is really a completely different scale of exploration. Would you want to live on Mars? I very much doubt that we will get to Mars this centuary and I wouldn't expect colonisation for a few hundred years.

And if you want to do 'proper' space exploration (a la Star Trek) you won't get there with NASA. You will need some fundamentally new ideas in physics first.

	04-02-2003 23:45									#207
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And particle physics is actually not very expensive for what you get.

Superconducting Supercollider anyone?

	04-02-2003 23:47									#208
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh It is really a completely different scale of exploration. Would you want to live on Mars? I very much doubt that we will get to Mars this centuary and I wouldn't expect colonisation for a few hundred years. And if you want to do 'proper' space exploration (a la Star Trek) you won't get there with NASA. You will need some fundamentally new ideas in physics first.

You have been watching too much Star Trek, as this is the entire back history of the show. NASA gets us nowhere until some egghead invents warp drive.

The applied physics of NASA is much more valuable right now than some theoretical experiments that may or may not be valuable 50-100 years from now.

	04-02-2003 23:47									#209
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In a heartbeat, I'd wanna live on Mars!

And, I'd contend that it doesn't have to be an either-or proposition.

We've got the money to put good financial backing behind both (that'd be like saying: "Well, we can either fund health care, or the military this year....take your pick.") No! We can do both. Granted, we can't just give both unlimited funds, but if we handle it on an "manage by objective" basis, then we don't need to.

-=Vel=-

	05-02-2003 00:26									#210
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DanS Don't think shuttle has done anything military for a decade.

The shuttle's military role has been scaled back, but they do play an important part in launching and repairing intelligence satellites. Shuttles also fly topography missions and the Air Force is working in conjunction with NASA to develop space based radar, of which the shuttle will definitely play a part.

I wouldn't say that the shuttle has no military mission today, but rather that existing technology gives the shuttle no practical military applications.