Space Exploration

[Grand Vol]

I agree. They would have. It was a race. They surrendered to the US on purpose for fear of treatment by the Russians, who hated Germany. The Russians were extremely angry that the US got the scientists. The cold war began that day.

Like I said. I'm not sure we could have done anything differently. I just also think it was an embarrassment, and I know we used foreign science.

Those were my points directed at a particular post.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend or so the old saying goes. And the groundwork for the Cold War was laid well before WWII in my opinion. Different thread though.

It may have been questionable, using the Germans, but in the end whether it was considered justified is another matter entirely.

 

[Grand Vol]

72% think it's worth it?! How many voted that it's worth the time and expenditures without knowing roughly what it costs?

NASA's budget next year will be around $17B. What are we getting for our money? Think of it like this....would you willingly send $60 annually to an organization that explores space (be honest)? Or $240 if you have a family of 4? I don't believe that 72% of you would, so why would you advocate that wasteful government forcefully take $60 for every man woman and child and spend it on space exploration?

And further...

$17 billion a year for something that actually produces benefits that each of us can see.

Congress has an estimated annual payment of $6 billion a year (salaries, staff, health care, allowances, etc). And that's not even getting into the Executive Branch so those numbers are probably well over $10 billion if not significantly more.

$17 billion for space exploration ($60 a person in the US)

$6 billion for a Congress that doesn't exactly give us anything tangible ($17 a person)

Would you rather give $60 for something that eventually will produce results and impact your own life in somewhat of a positive way or $17 paying the salaries and benefits of Congress?

Neither is not an answer.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And further...

$17 billion a year for something that actually produces benefits that each of us can see.

Congress has an estimated annual payment of $6 billion a year (salaries, staff, health care, allowances, etc). And that's not even getting into the Executive Branch so those numbers are probably well over $10 billion if not significantly more.

$17 billion for space exploration ($60 a person in the US)

$6 billion for a Congress that doesn't exactly give us anything tangible ($17 a person)

Would you rather give $60 for something that eventually will produce results and impact your own life in somewhat of a positive way or $17 paying the salaries and benefits of Congress?

Neither is not an answer.

I say we spend the 17B to send them all to the moon and still get a net gain.

 

[BearCat204]

I always like debating someone who can point out our points of agreement.

Well done sir...

I try to meet people in the middle

 

[n_huffhines]

Space exploration is very expensive, but very important IMO

Why?

I know there is value in it, but why do we need an agency to do it? Can't we just leave it up to academics and the free market?

 

[n_huffhines]

And further...

$17 billion a year for something that actually produces benefits that each of us can see.

Congress has an estimated annual payment of $6 billion a year (salaries, staff, health care, allowances, etc). And that's not even getting into the Executive Branch so those numbers are probably well over $10 billion if not significantly more.

$17 billion for space exploration ($60 a person in the US)

$6 billion for a Congress that doesn't exactly give us anything tangible ($17 a person)

Would you rather give $60 for something that eventually will produce results and impact your own life in somewhat of a positive way or $17 paying the salaries and benefits of Congress?

Neither is not an answer.

If we don't have Congress, there is no one to fund NASA, so two birds with one stone.

 

[Grand Vol]

Why?

I know there is value in it, but why do we need an agency to do it? Can't we just leave it up to academics and the free market?

This is not entirely a bad theory this day in age. However, those same free market enterprises (Boeing, SpaceX, etc) still depend greatly on government contracts for a lot of their funds.

 

[volinbham]

Late to the discussion but space exploration is a true example of public good and makes sense for Federal spending. School lunches, school curriculum, direct transfer payments, etc are bad examples of public good and do not make sense for Federal spending.

 

[Danl]

I agree. They would have. It was a race. They surrendered to the US on purpose for fear of treatment by the Russians, who hated Germany. The Russians were extremely angry that the US got the scientists. The cold war began that day.

Like I said. I'm not sure we could have done anything differently. I just also think it was an embarrassment, and I know we used foreign science.

Those were my points directed at a particular post.

I don't get the embarrassment. We kicked Nazi Germany's ass, and then took their best scientists and put them to work for us. Their work contributed significantly to making us the world power we are.Why aren't you proud of that?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't get the embarrassment. We kicked Nazi Germany's ass, and then took their best scientists and put them to work for us. Their work contributed significantly to making us the world power we are.Why aren't you proud of that?

Yes. If it were as simple as that, the gov't would have posted it in headlines across the globe instead of whitewashing their backgrounds for 40 years. "We hired war criminals and gave them awards" doesn't have a great ring to it.

 

[Danl]

Yes. If it were as simple as that, the gov't would have posted it in headlines across the globe instead of whitewashing their backgrounds for 40 years. "We hired war criminals and gave them awards" doesn't have a great ring to it.

In post WWII USA, what do you think those scientists lives would have been like if we had not "whitewashed" their resumes? How do you think their contributions to US technology would have been affected? Would they even be allowed to work, assuming they weren't killed or imprisoned?

Did any of these alleged war criminals commit any dastardly crimes post WWII? Or were they more or less model citizens?

Given the big picture, I think you're picking fly shyte out of the pepper.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is not entirely a bad theory this day in age. However, those same free market enterprises (Boeing, SpaceX, etc) still depend greatly on government contracts for a lot of their funds.

And I don't really like that either, but it is probably the lesser of two evils.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

SpaceX unveils sleek, reusable Dragon crew capsule

SpaceX unveils sleek, reusable Dragon crew capsule

First cargo, now crew – the uber-modern "space taxi" known as the Dragon V2 is ready for passengers. At an unveiling ceremony yesterday, complete with smoke effects and coloured lights, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave the world its first glimpse of the upgraded Dragon spacecraft.

NASA is already using an unpiloted version of Dragon to send cargo to the International Space Station and return valuable gear and scientific experiments. But Musk has always wanted Dragon to become a reusable ride for astronauts.

The new vehicle has simple silvery walls, seats for up to seven passengers and a set of flatscreen control panels. The spacecraft can dock itself to the ISS without help from the space station's robotic arm. But the most radical aspect of the redesign is the landing gear, which will allow astronauts to set the spacecraft down on solid ground.

Space chopper

The current version of Dragon deploys a parachute as it descends and splashes down in the ocean. Dragon V2 instead comes with a set of incredibly powerful SuperDraco engines, each capable of producing more than 70,000 newtons of thrust. The engines will allow astronauts to better manoeuvre in space as well as control their trajectory for re-entry.

"You'll be able to land anywhere on Earth with the accuracy of a helicopter," Musk said during the event at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. The engines are encased in protective shells, and they are set up in pairs so that if one fails, the other can give a boost of power to compensate.

The Dragon V2 also has sturdier heat shields, which brings SpaceX a step closer to realising its goal of developing spacecraft that are fully and rapidly reusable. SpaceX has successfully tested a set of landing legs on a rocket used to send the uncrewed Dragon to the ISS, and Musk hopes to soon make it possible for rockets and crew capsules to simply be reloaded with propellant and flown again, much like commercial airplanes.

"As long as we continue to throw away rockets and spacecraft, we will never have true access to space," says Musk.

Rodent crew

Like passengers in today's commercial aeroplanes, riders of the Dragon V2 won't get much leg room in the capsule's tight quarters. But the craft does include touchscreen interfaces to control the spacecraft, as well as manual buttons for critical functions that would be needed in case of emergency.

NASA astronauts are not set to ride in the Dragon V2 until 2017. However, a colony of mice and rats will make the journey on the next SpaceX cargo launch, becoming the private company's first mammalian passengers.

The rodents are set to spend six months on the ISS and will be the subjects of various experiments on the long-term effects of microgravity on mammal physiology. The results will hopefully prove handy for Musk, who hopes to eventually shuttle humans on the long trip to MarsMovie Camera.

When the Dragon V2 does launch with its first commercial crew, the face of space travel is going to change. "It will no longer be heroic to go to space – it will become a commodity – and it's about time," says John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington DC. "What will count is what people do once they get there."

 

[Grand Vol]

And I don't really like that either, but it is probably the lesser of two evils.

So what's your main gripe? Too much budget? Not enough spin off and related technology in the commercial sector for the price?

I think as government agencies go, NASA (until somewhat recently) has been reasonably apolitical and generally does a good job in a fairly efficient manner.

 

[n_huffhines]

Late to the discussion but space exploration is a true example of public good and makes sense for Federal spending. School lunches, school curriculum, direct transfer payments, etc are bad examples of public good and do not make sense for Federal spending.

A public good is one that is non-rival, and non-excludable. I'm not sure any of those are public goods. Consumption of food is rival. What you eat, I cannot. Food is excludable.

An example of a public good would be a fireworks show. You cannot prevent me from consuming the good.

The whole point of governments providing public goods is that because of their non-excludable, non-rival nature, you can't make money off of it and so the market doesn't provide the good/service.

If the space program is a public good, the implication is that we can all pretty equally benefit from it. And that space exploration would not occur without government's involvement, because there is no way to make money off of it.

I think scientists and businesses will devote resources to space exploration, because there is money in it. Even if it's just in selling knowledge (books, space camps, etc.).

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but what makes space exploration non-rival and non-excludable?

 

[Grand Vol]

SpaceX unveils sleek, reusable Dragon crew capsule

Elon Musk is a genius.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In post WWII USA, what do you think those scientists lives would have been like if we had not "whitewashed" their resumes? How do you think their contributions to US technology would have been affected? Would they even be allowed to work, assuming they weren't killed or imprisoned?

Did any of these alleged war criminals commit any dastardly crimes post WWII? Or were they more or less model citizens?

Given the big picture, I think you're picking fly shyte out of the pepper.

You serious?

If a serial killer said: "Hey, I won't kill anymore. And I'll even help little old ladies cross the street."

That makes it all OK?

One of the top NASA scientists ran the internment camp on-site, producing bombs, where 25,000 people died of hangings, starvation and lack of medical provisions. He ran a concentration camp! Another went out and hand picked people to put in it.

Pull the view back beyond just the rocket program. Try this one on for size:

Q: But you can understand how people must have found this morally reprehensible, especially when they learned about men like Otto Ambros, who was tried and convicted of war crimes, jailed for a few years, then allowed to settle in the United States.


A: Ambros is the most disturbing, dark character.
He was Hitler’s favourite chemist. He was given a million-Reichmark reward by Hitler because he co-invented sarin gas. The A in Sarin is the A for Ambros. He also invented synthetic rubber, buma, to keep the Reich running.

There was a buma factory at Auschwitz. Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals were coming off the trains, some were sent to the crematorium and some would be taken to work at the rubber factory. This was the factory that Otto Ambros was made manager of. So when he was tried at Nuremberg he was tried for mass murder and slavery. But he was given clemency [in 1951] by U.S. high commissioner [of Allied Germany] John McCloy and later given a U.S. Department of Energy contract.

Tried and convicted of mass murder war crimes. The US gave him a pardon and put him to work. But as long as he didn't do it again, and since he helped us develop nerve gas... No problem. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In post WWII USA, what do you think those scientists lives would have been like if we had not "whitewashed" their resumes? How do you think their contributions to US technology would have been affected? Would they even be allowed to work, assuming they weren't killed or imprisoned?

Did any of these alleged war criminals commit any dastardly crimes post WWII? Or were they more or less model citizens?

Given the big picture, I think you're picking fly shyte out of the pepper.

And for the record, you just agreed with me that it's not as simple as, "Hey! Cool! We just kicked Nazi ass and took their scientists! Let's all celebrate!"

 

[82_VOL_83]

No. I am focusing on the SS Major part. You weren't promoted to Major in the SS as a blind participant.

So you would have told the SS to f off had you been in his shoes? You da man.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So you would have told the SS to f off had you been in his shoes? You da man.

You obviously read posts in random order. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You serious?

If a serial killer said: "Hey, I won't kill anymore. And I'll even help little old ladies cross the street."

That makes it all OK?

What if you knew for a fact that said serial killer would not kill again in the future (your Christian, lets say they were born again) AND you knew (or could reasonably assume) that if they remained free, they would invent a product, technology, or discover a natural law that would fundamentally change the world forever (in a good way)? Would you lock said person up and/or execute them for their past crimes?

 

[MercyPercy]

I'm all for more space exploration. Any new knowledge or insight we gain from space is invaluable from a human progress perspective.

 

[Grand Vol]

What if you knew for a fact that said serial killer would not kill again in the future (your Christian, lets say they were born again) AND you knew (or could reasonably assume) that if they remained free, they would invent a product, technology, or discover a natural law that would fundamentally change the world forever (in a good way)? Would you lock said person up and/or execute them for their past crimes?

Kind of like David Marshall Williams?

 

[volinbham]

A public good is one that is non-rival, and non-excludable. I'm not sure any of those are public goods. Consumption of food is rival. What you eat, I cannot. Food is excludable.

An example of a public good would be a fireworks show. You cannot prevent me from consuming the good.

The whole point of governments providing public goods is that because of their non-excludable, non-rival nature, you can't make money off of it and so the market doesn't provide the good/service.

If the space program is a public good, the implication is that we can all pretty equally benefit from it. And that space exploration would not occur without government's involvement, because there is no way to make money off of it.

I think scientists and businesses will devote resources to space exploration, because there is money in it. Even if it's just in selling knowledge (books, space camps, etc.).

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but what makes space exploration non-rival and non-excludable?

I wasn't holding it to a strict definition. I was saying that space exploration is more prone to market failure than direct transfer payment type stuff that we routinely involve ourselves in.

I support the Federal government funding basic research (and I include space exploration here), providing national defense of course and things like national parks. None of these strictly meet your definition but all are cases of market failure (market failure is a continuum; not a dichotomy).

 

[FLVOL_79]

Do a 360..if you aren't in a forest there is a good chance everything you saw was related to space exploration in one way or another.