NASA: Triumph and Tragedy

[Guest alex]

Having said that, I think I'll have a couple of hash marmites and stick 'For All Mankind' on when I get in

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

 

I know all about nasa and the military man...That's why they want to privatise it. But what have they done to benefit mankind????

 

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

 

Who knows, the energy source that get's man back from Mars might replace fossil fuel and save the planet.

 

 

It would be cheaper to make energy from burning gold.

 

 

In the short term....that's why government should fund it.

 

IMPROVED AIRCRAFT ENGINE - Multiple NASA developed technological advancements resulted in a cleaner, quieter, more economical commercial aircraft engine known as the high bypass turbofan, featuring a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption, lower noise levels, and emission reductions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons.

[Park Life 71]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).

 

We don't have the conceptual philosohical paradigm yet for space travel. We are still essentially children playing with matches.

[Park Life 71]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&r...+uses&meta=

 

 

I know all about nasa and the military man...That's why they want to privatise it. But what have they done to benefit mankind????

 

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

 

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

 

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

 

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

 

SENSORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL - NASA development of an instrument for use in space life support research led to commercial development of a system to monitor an industrial process stream to assure that the effluent water's pH level is in compliance with environmental regulations.

 

etc.

 

 

Who knows, the energy source that get's man back from Mars might replace fossil fuel and save the planet.

 

 

It would be cheaper to make energy from burning gold.

 

 

In the short term....that's why government should fund it.

 

IMPROVED AIRCRAFT ENGINE - Multiple NASA developed technological advancements resulted in a cleaner, quieter, more economical commercial aircraft engine known as the high bypass turbofan, featuring a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption, lower noise levels, and emission reductions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons.

 

 

In another 50 years they might get that upto 12%.

[Guest alex]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).

Obviously nobody knows but I don't think your analogy works because Man had been just about everywhere on Earth on foot and in shit boats within a relatively small number of generations of getting out of Africa.

Edited July 3, 2009 by alex

[Renton 20917]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).

 

We don't have the conceptual philosohical paradigm yet for space travel. We are still essentially children playing with matches.

 

Who's we? I accept not everyone shares the foresight and spirit of adventure needed, but I'm quite suprised by your personal attitude on this tttt.

 

Anyway, what about all the Helium 3 on the moon for starters?

[Fop 1]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).

Obviously nobody knows but I don't think your analogy works because Man had been just about everywhere on Earth on foot and in shit boats within a relatively small number of generations of getting out of Africa.

 

 

Shit boats by today's standards maybe, but much better than the original floating log (and we're much closer to that floating log in space craft terms than we are to some super cruise liner).

 

 

And it's still the issue that getting everything out of the Earth's atmosphere/orbit is more challenging than actually building a craft that could get to Mars, land (or a small part of it), take off and get back.

[Guest alex]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

[Renton 20917]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

 

Well we've only got 6 billion years, better get a move on now before it's too late.

 

Aye, who knows. I've probably just been hoodwinked by Sci Fi films.

[Park Life 71]

I'm not against a space programme, I'm more saying the resources involved in sending people to Mars or back to the Moon aren't worth it imo.

 

It's a domino effect as well though, being on the Moon makes it much easier (and cheaper relatively) to get to Mars.

 

Being permanently in orbit was supposed to make both easier too, but the accountants got hold of the ISS.

It's pointless imo. When you look at how far the Space programme has regressed since Apollo I don't see the ultimate aim (if I read you and Renton correctly) of getting the Earth's population to a potentially habitable planet light years away will ever happen.

 

It's all steps though, getting to North America on a log was never going to happen, but getting to that island you can just see then refining your design eventually leads to just that.

 

Especially as the biggest hurdle in getting to say Mars is still actually getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and orbit. Being properly permanently in orbit or on the Moon reduces that massively.

 

 

 

 

Actually it may not be oil () that gets us to the Moon or Mars again, but the value of rare earth metals (which just maybe be viable to use/transport).

 

We don't have the conceptual philosohical paradigm yet for space travel. We are still essentially children playing with matches.

 

Who's we? I accept not everyone shares the foresight and spirit of adventure needed, but I'm quite suprised by your personal attitude on this tttt.

 

Anyway, what about all the Helium 3 on the moon for starters?

 

I think man has the capability to do space sure, but while we carry on destroying this planet and total lack of vision of most Govts, there will be no meaningful push into space cause that would require the maj Govts working together. Until we can have peace on this planet and proper use of resources there will be no space travel.

[Park Life 71]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

 

Unless the whole planet works together on it, that is the only way. Our track record is poor.

[Park Life 71]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

 

Well we've only got 6 billion years, better get a move on now before it's too late.

 

Aye, who knows. I've probably just been hoodwinked by Sci Fi films.

[Fop 1]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

 

Which is about where we are with space craft.

 

Now another Solar system is a different kettle of fish altogether, that's like comparing that floating log to a Mars capable space craft. (but that's not to say it's any more impossible that it was for a floating log to eventually lead to a Moon capable space craft).

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

 

Well we've got a few years left yet, but it could never happen unless we do get to the Moon and then Mar in the first place.

 

But again the huge issue is that Earth's atmosphere/orbit problem, we could easily (and relatively cheaply) build something that was completely capable of getting a few humans to Mars today (and landing on it and then getting back)..... but the huge problem is then getting it out of the Earth's atmosphere (and to a lesser extent orbit).

 

 

The ISS was originally envisioned to be the first step in overcoming this problem, but like Fop said accountants have royally screwed that up.

[Park Life 71]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

 

Which is about where we are with space craft.

 

Now another Solar system is a different kettle of fish altogether, that's like comparing that floating log to a Mars capable space craft. (but that's not to say it's any more impossible that it was for a floating log to eventually lead to a Moon capable space craft).

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong one way or the other, I just don't see it myself. I.e. total migration of the population once the Sun packs in.

 

Well we've got a few years left yet, but it could never happen unless we do get to the Moon and then Mar in the first place.

 

But again the huge issue is that Earth's atmosphere/orbit problem, we could easily (and relatively cheaply) build something that was completely capable of getting a few humans to Mars today (and landing on it and then getting back)..... but the huge problem is then getting it out of the Earth's atmosphere (and to a lesser extent orbit).

 

 

The ISS was originally envisioned to be the first step in overcoming this problem, but like Fop said accountants have royally screwed that up.

 

Fact is till all the military budgets are pooled there will be no space travel.

[Lazarus 0]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to

The ISS was originally envisioned to be the first step in overcoming this problem, but like Fop said accountants have royally screwed that up.

 

All accountants are bastards.

 

 

FACT!

[Guest alex]

Or to put it another way, human nature might be a bigger stumbling block than the technological difficulties. Assuming we somehow stop the next fuck-off big asteroid headed our way.

[Happy Face 29]

I think man has the capability to do space sure, but while we carry on destroying this planet and total lack of vision of most Govts, there will be no meaningful push into space cause that would require the maj Govts working together. Until we can have peace on this planet and proper use of resources there will be no space travel.

 

Quite. That's different to what you were saying though I think, which to me seemed to be that no space program is worth any cost because nothing of value comes from it.

 

The US Military budget is $540bn+

 

America recently slashed by 16 percent the space agency's $4 billion request for manned space exploration in 2010 (Total NASA budget is $18Bn).

Edited July 3, 2009 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

Or to put it another way, human nature might be a bigger stumbling block than the technological difficulties. Assuming we somehow stop the next fuck-off big asteroid headed our way.

 

It's what I was trying to get at. Until we can stop fighting each other in every walk of life and until the obscene military spending can be re-directed there will be no space travel, simply cause America can't afford it. Also the way new tech is suppressed or gets co-opted by the military is another massive handicap.

 

The main reason the nasa funding continues is largely cause it's a military program disguised as a civilian one.

[Guest alex]

Or to put it another way, human nature might be a bigger stumbling block than the technological difficulties. Assuming we somehow stop the next fuck-off big asteroid headed our way.

 

It's what I was trying to get at. Until we can stop fighting each other in every walk of life and until the obscene military spending can be re-directed there will be no space travel, simply cause America can't afford it. Also the way new tech is suppressed or gets co-opted by the military is another massive handicap.

 

The main reason the nasa funding continues is largely cause it's a military program disguised as a civilian one.

Right on brother.

[Park Life 71]

I think man has the capability to do space sure, but while we carry on destroying this planet and total lack of vision of most Govts, there will be no meaningful push into space cause that would require the maj Govts working together. Until we can have peace on this planet and proper use of resources there will be no space travel.

 

Quite. That's different to what you were saying though I think, which to me seemed to be that no space program is worth any cost because nothing of value comes from it.

 

The US Military budget is $540bn+

 

America recently slashed by 16 percent the space agency's $4 billion request for manned space exploration in 2010 (Total NASA budget is $18Bn).

 

The disparity in those fig is sickening. Man's future is in space, but we must earn it and part of that map is getting our home planet in order first.

[Renton 20917]

Or to put it another way, human nature might be a bigger stumbling block than the technological difficulties. Assuming we somehow stop the next fuck-off big asteroid headed our way.

 

It's what I was trying to get at. Until we can stop fighting each other in every walk of life and until the obscene military spending can be re-directed there will be no space travel, simply cause America can't afford it. Also the way new tech is suppressed or gets co-opted by the military is another massive handicap.

 

The main reason the nasa funding continues is largely cause it's a military program disguised as a civilian one.

 

Any evidence for the bolded bit out of interest? Given the astronomical figures quoted by HF for the US defence budget overall, it would seem to me likely that NASA's relatively miniscule budget is ringfenced for what it says on the can.

[Park Life 71]

Or to put it another way, human nature might be a bigger stumbling block than the technological difficulties. Assuming we somehow stop the next fuck-off big asteroid headed our way.

 

It's what I was trying to get at. Until we can stop fighting each other in every walk of life and until the obscene military spending can be re-directed there will be no space travel, simply cause America can't afford it. Also the way new tech is suppressed or gets co-opted by the military is another massive handicap.

 

The main reason the nasa funding continues is largely cause it's a military program disguised as a civilian one.

 

Any evidence for the bolded bit out of interest? Given the astronomical figures quoted by HF for the US defence budget overall, it would seem to me likely that NASA's relatively miniscule budget is ringfenced for what it says on the can.

 

Nasa has a covert arm with no published budget. It was started by Reagan.

 

 

This kind of thing is flim flam for the next arms race in space...

 

"HOUSTON -- The prowess of U.S. space technology is to be increased through a partnership struck up between NASA, the U.S. Strategic Command, the National Reconnaissance Office, Air Force Space Command and the Pentagons Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

 

Word at the World Space Congress has it that the partnership has been strengthened through a newly signed memorandum of agreement.

 

Next-generation launch vehicles, enhanced use of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellations, telecommunications, and radar surveillance from space all these and other technologies are to be moved forward given growth of a NASA-military alliance called the Partnership Council."

 

 

This is part of the problem for mankind where thinking is still focussed on the kill rate of Chinese satellites in low orbit or space based laser defence than exploring space in a coherent and peaceful manner.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

Last year, the Pentagon’s space program received $22 billion, one third more than NASA’s entire budget, so it seems reasonable that funds could be shared. But it sounds like NASA could be merging certain aspects of the civilian space program with the US military space program, probably scrapping Constellation and making military Delta IV and Atlas V rockets “human rated”…

 

 

What is the pentagon's space program I can hear you thinking...

[Guest alex]

Thor Heyerdahl proved you could get from South America to Polynesia on floating logs tied together with a primative sail.

On top of that the distances are unimaginably huge to get from here to the edge of the Solar System let alone other Solar Systems.

 

Which is about where we are with space craft.

 

 

So you've said, but the analogy doesn't work for me except in the loosest sense because a few bits of wood and a sail will take you everywhere on the oceans eventually because of trade winds, currents etc. Space travel doesn't work like that however.

[Rob W 0]

Last year, the Pentagon’s space program received $22 billion, one third more than NASA’s entire budget, so it seems reasonable that funds could be shared. But it sounds like NASA could be merging certain aspects of the civilian space program with the US military space program, probably scrapping Constellation and making military Delta IV and Atlas V rockets “human rated”…

 

 

What is the pentagon's space program I can hear you thinking...

 

 

turn on your GPS and you'll know

 

plus all them pictures of N Korean space launches.............................