The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm much more wowed by science than men in space so I'll take it.

The term alone does nothing for me - tell me what cool science you plan to do - Transporter beams? Wayback machines? At least Reagen had Star Wars

[CoasterMatt]

I want a machine that can launch a fish from the bottom of the ocean, to the top of Mt. Everest - that would be an AWESOME X-prize contest. Thank you, and goodnight.

[scaeagles]

I admit to be genuinely torn by this.

Being that the private man spaced flight stuff is picking up, I can envision that manned space flight doesn't stop. I suppose I view this as something akin to the public education system....not constitutionally mandated in the least, but everyone agrees that it is better that we have it.

How many thousands of inventions and discoveries came from the push to put men on the moon, or even into orbit? I couldn't even begin to quantify them.

This will undoubtedly lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs (some reports says hundreds of thousands), so it seems strange to me that this is cut leading to job loss, but Obama wants 100 billion for job programs. Why not keep those people employed where they are? Have our scientists and engineers laid off, but pay for them to be retrained as a burger flipper (hyperbole intended).

We encourage kids through scholarships and grants and whatever to learn math and science and go to university to pursue such fields, but then cut what the government spends on those things.

Innovation will still happen, and I hope that private funding is big enough to make significant scientific advancements. I wonder, though, if those who make investments and expect a return on them will then be treated as pharmaceutical companies when trying to make profits off of their investment in research.

How would the world be different if the Soviets had landed on the moon first? Maybe not much. I don't really know. There is certainly an issue of national pride involved for me. Some things have to be cut, certainly (and the so called spending freeze is laughable, but that's a different subject), and whatever is cut will have the detractors en masse making their objections known.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, though, I would have to figure that what has been spent on space exploration, specifically manned space flight, would weigh heavily on the benefit side.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How many thousands of inventions and discoveries came from the push to put men on the moon, or even into orbit? I couldn't even begin to quantify them.

Lots, but that is one of the points in cutting the program to return to the moon. Those inventions and advancements have already been made and going to the moon essentially just repeats them.

This will undoubtedly lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs (some reports says hundreds of thousands), so it seems strange to me that this is cut leading to job loss, but Obama wants 100 billion for job programs.

That's attributing to this spending a huge efficiency in creating employment that would be amazing. However, overall the NASA budget is being increased and with more cheaper programs I would expect that science and engineer employment likely would increase. Though specific jobs that have been strategically distributed throughout congressional districts may be at risk.

We encourage kids through scholarships and grants and whatever to learn math and science and go to university to pursue such fields, but then cut what the government spends on those things.

Again, the NASA budget request is an increase. And a refocus towards hard science (manned space flight may be cool, but it accomplishes very little actual science).

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I don't know - if these really was "better" then tell us what the "wow" is, what are all these extra "science funds" going to buy us? Pragmatic sure, inspiring? not a bit.

Interestingly, Senator Richard Shelby seems to have the opposite reaction to you. You feel this is a move away from inspiration to boring pragmatism. He sees it in the other direction, an abandonment of science in favor of inspiration:

Originally Posted by Richard Shelby

The president’s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human spaceflight. If this budget is enacted, NASA will no longer be an agency of innovation and hard science. It will be the agency of pipe dreams and fairy tales.

I'd be curious to know what hard science he things putting humans into low earth orbit has uniquely accomplished over the last 30 years. I suspect it is really the hard science of constructing booster rockets in his state.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'd be curious to know what hard science he things putting humans into low earth orbit has uniquely accomplished over the last 30 years. I suspect it is really the hard science of constructing booster rockets in his state.

Portable Cordless Vacuums

and many others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Portable Cordless Vacuums

Still waiting for some hard science. I in no way question the engineering achievements that have spun off from NASA in recent decades through the manned-spaceflight programs. Though most of them I'd question whether they're development was uniquely dependent on manned spaceflight or if that just provided one of many possible development platforms.

And I'm sure plenty of hard science has been done but most of does not actually requires humans to be present. It is always a challenge for NASA to find actual scientific-type things for them to do. That's why now that we've pretty much finished the ISS they need to either now redo it towards more scientific goals or just let the program expire, it has no inherent purpose other than PR.

But still, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight in private hands, and manned-spaceflight by the government if they can show an actual strong benefit beyond PR. But since they haven't accomplished that after 50 years of having a space program I doubt they'll come up with something soon.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

Still waiting for some hard science. I in no way question the engineering achievements that have spun off from NASA in recent decades through the manned-spaceflight programs. Though most of them I'd question whether they're development was uniquely dependent on manned spaceflight or if that just provided one of many possible development platforms.

And I'm sure plenty of hard science has been done but most of does not actually requires humans to be present. It is always a challenge for NASA to find actual scientific-type things for them to do. That's why now that we've pretty much finished the ISS they need to either now redo it towards more scientific goals or just let the program expire, it has no inherent purpose other than PR.

But still, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight in private hands, and manned-spaceflight by the government if they can show an actual strong benefit beyond PR. But since they haven't accomplished that after 50 years of having a space program I doubt they'll come up with something soon.

Ok, I see what you're saying.

[scaeagles]

On a different subject, with Iran saber rattling and proclaiming a blow to the west on Feb 11, any predictions? I've read some theorizing about an attack on Israel, but I doubt that, as that would result in war since Ahmadenijad is talking it up.

Personally, and I'm probably way off, I believe that this will be the date that Iran declares it has successfully manufactured a nuclear weapon.

[Strangler Lewis]

If you want government to heavily fund private development in outer space, it's clear what you have to build.

A prison.

[Ghoulish Delight]