The Candidates and their positions on Space Exploration

[molson_golden2002]

Welcome to the party, pal. Molson is the only one here who doesn't know Molson's an idiot. The coolest thing is when he calls someone else an idiot for making a lucid point, all the while puffing his chest out. High comedy.

How's the work of abolishing the federal government going Mr. Rational?

[molson_golden2002]

1 - There would also have been no United States of America. No US Constitution, no "Give me liberty or give me death", no Marilyn Monroe, no Big Macs, or any of the other things everybody loves to hate and hates to love about America. There would also have been no George W Bush for you to rag on 10 times a day.

 

2 - And there was a time people thought that if you sailed to the west you'd fall off. We can't live in space now, but we never will be able to if we don't start looking for a way off this rock. This rock with 6+ Billion people (and growing) all competing for limited resources

 

3 - Unlike most other government programs NASA actually sees a return on its investment. I would however like to see more private sector initiiatives in space exploration

1) Wonderful

 

2) Absolutely, but you assume all the answers are somewhere else. Conservation, technology and innovation might just solve the problem down here, or in combination with people finding value in space.

 

3-Sorry, but education pays a giant dividend. Way bigger than NASA. We complain about it all the time but it does provide a basic foundadtion for individual advancement.

[Alaska Darin]

How's the work of abolishing the federal government going Mr. Rational?

About the same pace as your ability to post a cognizant thought. You know, since "abolishing the federal government" has NEVER been under consideration.

 

Love the attempted strawman. No one's buying the deflection from the original point. Try the next page in the retarded liberal playbook.

[finknottle]

3-Sorry, but education pays a giant dividend. Way bigger than NASA. We complain about it all the time but it does provide a basic foundadtion for individual advancement.

 

Most people in this country do not go into the sciences and engineering without inspiration. In fact, they don't do anything hard. Look at the pendulum between med school and law school applications - it pretty much tracks the appearance of shows like ER and LA Law.

 

More education without inspiration = more communications and business BA's. I'll pass on that dividend.

[John Adams]

3-Sorry, but education pays a giant dividend. Way bigger than NASA. We complain about it all the time but it does provide a basic foundadtion for individual advancement.

 

Tomorrow's high school dropouts will have gone to Obama's federally funded pre-K. Idiocy.

 

NASA gets a pittance. God forbid the government actually spend money directly on science, one of the few areas where the US still holds any advantage on the rest of the world. (Slipping fast though.)

[VABills]

Tomorrow's high school dropouts will have gone to Obama's federally funded pre-K. Idiocy.

 

NASA gets a pittance. God forbid the government actually spend money directly on science, one of the few areas where the US still holds any advantage on the rest of the world. (Slipping fast though.)

It's not really about the kids. It's about adding 50 thousand more teachers to the teachers union on the government dole who will vote 90% dem. Noone cares about the kids, its about the longterm of putting more people in government jobs and unions at the expense of business and advancement.

[finknottle]

NASA gets a pittance. God forbid the government actually spend money directly on science, one of the few areas where the US still holds any advantage on the rest of the world. (Slipping fast though.)

 

Forget the technical advantage. NASA ought to be funded for the foreign policy benefit. NASA remains the one institution in the US (or any other government for that matter) which is universally admired and respected around the world. Even in the most hardened anti-US places in the Middle-East, you mention NASA and the eyes light up and the smiles come out. It's acheivements have united people in spirit in a way that no political movement can ever hope to.

 

But I'm sure that ensuring that every american pre-schooler has a full set of crayons will earn their admiration too.

[TheMadCap]

I've said it before and I'll say it once more:

 

NASA = awesome at science and unmanned probes

NASA = very inefficient in manned exploration and development

 

You have to remember, NASA believes that the key to thier survival lies in keeping the monopoly on spaceflight between them and thier toadie contractors. While much inovation and advances could come from the private sector, in the space game, you either play ball with NASA or you get beat down...

[finknottle]

I've said it before and I'll say it once more:

 

NASA = awesome at science and unmanned probes

NASA = very inefficient in manned exploration and development

 

You have to remember, NASA believes that the key to thier survival lies in keeping the monopoly on spaceflight between them and thier toadie contractors. While much inovation and advances could come from the private sector, in the space game, you either play ball with NASA or you get beat down...

 

Yeah, don't let my defense of NASA in this thread mislead you - I'm attacking national priorities, not defending NASA's administration. I think they are hide-bound, risk-averse, and aggravatingly monopolistic. The need to be encouraging the opening up of space, not defending their turf.

[molson_golden2002]

Tomorrow's high school dropouts will have gone to Obama's federally funded pre-K. Idiocy.

 

NASA gets a pittance. God forbid the government actually spend money directly on science, one of the few areas where the US still holds any advantage on the rest of the world. (Slipping fast though.)

Well, I'd argue that we would be trying to have fewer drop outs by getting to the kids at a younger age and engaging them in learning sooner. Fewer drop outs helps the country as a whole.

 

Again, I'm not against spending for science at all. I've argued here on this board--actually earlier in this thread I believe--for more spending on science, much more actually. I think that it should be spent on helping the nation move towards energy independence though. That should be a long term goal of the government, some sort of Manhatten Project for energy. An investment like that would really pay off. And I'm not just talking about alternative energy but also having the government become involved in actively promoting conservation on a wide scale. It would be expensive but a worthwhile investment. Hell, I think research funding for cancer research and other other diseases should be massively increased also.

 

I have absolutely no interest in a manned space mission to Mars though

[ieatcrayonz]

OMG! This thread gave the the best laugh.

 

I was on the board and just skimming around and thought the title of the thread was:

 

 

The Canadians and their positions on Space exploration.

 

 

Anyway, I laughed for about 45 minutes straight. I had to leave the room. Anyway, when I got back I discovered that I had read "candidates" incorrectly. That took a little of the laugh away but in all sincerity can you imagine Canadians exploring space?

 

For our next experiment we'll see the effects weightlessness has on hockey pucks. Hmmm....they just seem to float around.

 

In space, ice looks exactly like.........ice.

 

Realistically, they are more likely to consider "space" to be "the area between their two front teeth if said teeth actually exist."

[sweetbaboo]

I have absolutely no interest in a manned space mission to Mars though

In developing the technologies that make a manned space mission to Mars, alot of new scientific discoveries and technologies are created and spun off for other uses...alternative energy sources would be one of them. How the hell do you think they're going to have enough oxygen, electricity, fuel and food to use for such a long trip?

 

 

Most people in this country do not go into the sciences and engineering without inspiration. In fact, they don't do anything hard. Look at the pendulum between med school and law school applications - it pretty much tracks the appearance of shows like ER and LA Law.

and thanks to Frasier, a bunch of psych majors...

 

The general perception of scientists and engineers is that they're a bunch of geeks with no life outside of the lab...hence, there isn't really anything on prime time tv that would draw young people to it the way the lawyer, doctor and psychiatrist shows do. On the other hand, the Discovery channel and National Geographics channel has some amazing stuff. I didn't think it was very "cool" to watch that stuff when I was younger, but I can't get enough of it now. I'm assuming much of the younger generations still don't find science engineering to be cool.

 

Dean Kamen states it well on his website DEKA Research

"You have teenagers thinking they're going to make millions as NBA stars when that's not realistic for even 1 percent of them. Becoming a scientist or engineer is."

 

on another note, science apparently is also difficult to capture on video...during my last year of my PhD work, a camera crew came in to film our labs. When they came to me the first thing the photographer said was, "Act like you're doing science..."

 

WTF

 

My response was, "I am doing science."

For sake of the shoot, I donned a lab coat, goggles and held some beakers with colored fluid in them. Every once in a while, I'd shout, "Eureka!" just to piss them off...

[Wacka]

In developing the technologies that make a manned space mission to Mars, alot of new scientific discoveries and technologies are created and spun off for other uses...alternative energy sources would be one of them. How the hell do you think they're going to have enough oxygen, electricity, fuel and food to use for such a long trip?

 

 

and thanks to Frasier, a bunch of psych majors...

 

The general perception of scientists and engineers is that they're a bunch of geeks with no life outside of the lab...hence, there isn't really anything on prime time tv that would draw young people to it the way the lawyer, doctor and psychiatrist shows do. On the other hand, the Discovery channel and National Geographics channel has some amazing stuff. I didn't think it was very "cool" to watch that stuff when I was younger, but I can't get enough of it now. I'm assuming much of the younger generations still don't find science engineering to be cool.

 

Dean Kamen states it well on his website DEKA Research

"You have teenagers thinking they're going to make millions as NBA stars when that's not realistic for even 1 percent of them. Becoming a scientist or engineer is."

 

on another note, science apparently is also difficult to capture on video...during my last year of my PhD work, a camera crew came in to film our labs. When they came to me the first thing the photographer said was, "Act like you're doing science..."

 

WTF

 

My response was, "I am doing science."

For sake of the shoot, I donned a lab coat, goggles and held some beakers with colored fluid in them. Every once in a while, I'd shout, "Eureka!" just to piss them off...

 

Every time a story is done in a bio lab, the idiotic camera crew has to darken the lights an put the pink and blue filters on their lights so that it looks "cool". Most labs I have been in are a mess, have music playing and lots of flourescent lights so we could see what we are doing.

[molson_golden2002]

In developing the technologies that make a manned space mission to Mars, alot of new scientific discoveries and technologies are created and spun off for other uses...alternative energy sources would be one of them. How the hell do you think they're going to have enough oxygen, electricity, fuel and food to use for such a long trip?

Fine, then develop them without wasting all the money of going to Mars, if that's even possible

[sweetbaboo]

Fine, then develop them without wasting all the money of going to Mars, if that's even possible

In other words, forget shooting for the moon and stars and just aim low.

[finknottle]

Fine, then develop them without wasting all the money of going to Mars, if that's even possible

 

Why bother with funding education at all? We could take that money and spend it all on social services.

 

If you think that is too draconian, then how about just eliminating programs like history, music, arts, sports, and disability programs. No need to inspire people, just stick with the three R's in subjects that matter.

[/dev/null]

Fine, then develop them without wasting all the money of going to Mars,

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

if that's even possible

Sail west and you'll fall off the Earth

[molson_golden2002]

Why bother with funding education at all? We could take that money and spend it all on social services.

 

If you think that is too draconian, then how about just eliminating programs like history, music, arts, sports, and disability programs. No need to inspire people, just stick with the three R's in subjects that matter.

So if I get your point, its that we should go to Mars for inspirational purposes?

[molson_golden2002]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

 

Sail west and you'll fall off the Earth

There is no necessity for going to Mars, and again, I hate the comparison of the old sailing ships and space travel. I just don't think it works, the difference are far greater than are the similarities, IMO

[finknottle]

So if I get your point, its that we should go to Mars for inspirational purposes?

 

Onward and upward, lest you turn inward and stagnate. It is the story of civilization.

 

Personally, Mars would not be my first choice either - I think the priority should be a permanent presence in space with self-sustainability a serious objective. But inspiration only is enough to justify.

 

How do you feel about the moon landings? Do you think we would have been better off had that money been added to Johnsons War on Poverty or turned into tax cuts? Or would we be just where we are today but without the memories?

 

Consider the pryamids. Do you think they should not have been built? Would giving the workers all that time off as a holidy have been better than the thousands of years we have gained in which millions have been enspired, from the school child in China to the archeologist in Germany, to the Egyption on the street who can look on his history with pride? And what about Michaelangelo's Sistene Chapel? Should the Pope have taken the money and spent it instead on opening up on yet another church serving the poor?