Because they won't fight back...
 

Bush pushes for permanent occupation of Moon.

Actually, I think this could be pretty cool. I'm a fan of the manned space program. All my old books said we'd have moonbases by seven years ago! Get on the ball, NASA!

Didn't the Japanese (maybe Chinese?) announce a short time ago, they planned on establishing Moon bases to support mining operations? :confused:

But who owns the moon? Is there enough space for everyone?

I vote for venus...the planet luuuurve! No wonder it's so HOT!!!

There's enough room for everyone who can get there...

...at the moment.

Somewhere, the shades of Heinlein and Ley are smiling.

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, but the bill had nothing about creating a separate democratic alliance for governing the moon. Thus he and some other lunar-tics (har har) established an intergalatic federation (not joking) of sorts and were distributing deeds to land plots on the moon. He said the major hotel chains were so far their best customers; on the show, he gave Carson, Donald Trump and Nelly each their own titles to moon property.

I think he ran into some troubles after this. I don't remember his name, so I've been searching for reviews of that episode to find a list of the guests on the show ... however, in three instances his name was omitted entirely. I have a feeling his appearance may have been axed from the broadcast show - there's no way there would be no mention of something this quirky. Furthermore, imbd.com says actor Dennis Hopper appeared on that episode. Perhaps there was a switcheroo.

Anyway. I think a moon base would be awesome. If we have the resources to travel out there and beyond, hell, go for it. We might as well try it while we can - we could end up with the dinosaurs in another couple thousand years.

Here's another occasion to be pleased about the UN's utter powerlessness. It is a shame that states will be involved in any way but its a big universe once you get a foothold.

We'll probably need to complete the space elevator before any sort of large scale extraterrestrial construction becomes really feasable. I heard a quote on that for about 2020, we need to increase our technology surrounding carbon nanotubes a bit first. It's supposed to reduce the cost of transporting materials to space to only a few thousand dollars a pound or less.

2020? Not a chance! I'd love to be proven wrong, but materials science will have to have some pretty amazing breakthroughs. A rope thousands of miles long, much stronger than anything we've got, that doesn't degrade in either the humidity of atmosphere or the hard radiation of outer space. I'd be surprised if the planning stageis near completion by 2020.

But I hope I'm wrong.

I've read about this guy... you send him some money and then he will send you a deed for some 'property' on the moon. He also sales deeds for other celestial bodies. Only problem is that while the international treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, it doesn't mention anything about sales to private individuals. However, such sales of 'lunar property' are not legally recognized by any nation or world body. I couldn't find his name because most of the internet is blocked at my work, but I know he is from Nevada and you can read more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Registry
and http://www.lunarregistry.com

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands, right now we can make them a few tens of centemeters long. Carbon nanofiber will be strong enough and flexable enough to make a permanent Earth to space connection possible, it's about 100 times stronger than steel and as flexable as plastic. At our current rate of progress I would say we could have everything ready for construction by ~2030, but that wouldn't take the accelerating law of returns into account.

Last night was full moon. Just guessing, but I think someone is a few centemeters short.

Be very careful about letting your emotions replace logical thought. Same hype created a Space Shuttle that cost the US leadership in space launching. Why? Space Shuttle was not created for science or for logical accomplishment. It was created on emotional hype that America would have a space airplane. Air Force was particularly interested in this so as to create a Space Force.

Overlooked his where mankind is accomplishing great things. Robotics is how great men have been advancing mankind. Need I cite example after example - Martian Rovers, the constellation of satellites now in orbit around Mars, Hubble Space Telescope, Chandler, Solar Max, etc. Even earth borne telescopes operate on robotics. And the future tools for this are being developed by innovators in waves. Already the Martian Rovers have been provided with artificial intelligence to change their mission based upon events they detect. Almost all NASA science is accomplished on less than 10% of its budget - in robotics and other intelligent machines.

'Grand Challenge' again demonstrates the future of who will be the world leaders. Next year, 'Urban Challenge' continues making tools that are so necessary for mans conquest of the unknown - and that means space exploration. A benchmark for whether you grasp mankind's greatest advances. Do you know about Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge?

Because a Moon Base is proposed by an administration full of political extremists - and that means low intelligence - then I am indeed suspicious. It would be illogical to not be extremely suspicious. Meanwhile, manned flight repeatedly results in the least prosperous science and at tens of times more cost. After $tens of billion on the International Space Station, ISS still does no science.

Why was the Columbia destroyed? It was carrying the only manned space experiments that we do - Space Lab. Did you know that? Then why do you think a manned moon base is good? Again, we have seen what happens when emotion and political rhetoric is reason for doing something. Do you approve of a moon base only because it feels 'cool'? Or are you doing what a patriotic American does – first learn facts?

When Ballard was doing deep ocean research, he learned something stunning. Rather than look out of portholes, his scientists were running to their instruments and cameras. That is when Ballard got the message. Robotics is the future of deep ocean accomplishment - not manned probes. Have you yet learned the future - or are you so in the 'Columbus discovered America' mode?

Use principles even from Military Science 101. What is the strategic objective? Advancement of science advances mankind. Throwing big bucks at something – ie International Space Station, Space Shuttle, etc – only permtted others to become the advancers of mankind. Need we again cite how America lost space leadership due to Shuttle?

The history of America is doing things for logical reasons. What does a moonbase do other than advance the legacy of George Jr? That question should scare you.

I hope so, but manufacturing will have to become extremely exact, as the tiniest flaw dramatically decreases the strength of a nanotube. And I don't know the physics, but I can certainly see hard radiation, drastic temperature differentials, and space-dust impacts could cause imperfections even if our production methods are perfect. Some form of continually-replaced shielding would probably be needed, which would dramatically increase the weight of the cable.

tw, you are quite correct regarding robotics, and satellite based technology. Many scientists at NASA and associated organisations believe that sending manned missions into space is a waste of money, and that "man" can do nothing that a robot cannot, and usually robotic laboratories (aka Mars Rover), are far more cost effective than a "manned" equivalent mission.

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

If Nixon had not killed the Apollo mission, we would have had a base on the Moon by 1975 (that was the plan), and the whole of the space programme probably would have taken a different direction. Who knows which branch of possible futures would have been better for mankind (I'm getting a little Sci-Fi here, I know).

One argument in favour of the Moon base is that it will be much easier, and cheaper, to launch craft to Mars (and beyond). Maybe something useful will be salvaged from the political decisions.

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights (we have also benefited from the non-manned programmes). Unfortunately, I do not recall the site.

In 1960s, only robots we had were Neil Armstrong, et al. So we sent what we had. The transistor was but less than ten years old. Something extremely rare - a commerical version of a microprocessor that cost about $2000 or something over $15,000 in today’s money (plus support chips). Instruments that could see and remember also did not exist.

Today, instruments routinely see things that man cannot - and record them. Machines measure things that man cannot. Man must visit and leave quickly – machines stay and keep working. By 2010, an army must even have fleets of trucks that drive themselves. Why then is a manned moon base in 2020 so important?

Again, this sounds too much like a decision by those without any grasp of science and without even knowledge of Military Science 101. Political types did not provide facts about going to the moon in 1960. Back then, the president's legacy was not more important than America.

Clearly there will be parts of our space program that require man just as those telescopes on Hawaii and Hubble also require visits from men. But to create a manned moon base only to promote a political agenda or hype emotion - that sounds exactly why we are wasting Americans in Iraq.

If there is a purpose to this manned moon base, then where are those facts - those all so necessary details - the underlying science that will be studied? No details are provided. This is Vietnam, Iraq, and ISS deja vue all over again. Just because Queen Isabella had to send a human to find America means robots still cannot do it better today?

What is the mission? What is the objective? Emotion has no place in such decisions. Emotion creates defeat, death, loss of power, destruction of science, both Vietnam and Iraq, and is even what murdered seven Challenger astronauts and seven Columbia astronauts. Do we call that advancing mankind because we feel good? I smell the legacy of George Jr - America's nominee for worst president - all over this program.

Why did Nixon cancel future space launches? Vietnam war could not be lost on his watch. Logical thought had nothing to do with canceling moon launches. Nixon had priorities that were for his legacy - at the expense of America. But again, first ask why a decision was made.

Do you smell the legacy of a president rather than the advancement of mankind? It happens when we blindly believe a lying president rather than first ask embarrassing questions. For example, what is the science? What is the mission? Questions that both of America's worst presidents ever could not even hope to answer.

Like Tang? Like the transistor and microprocessor? Don't believe that hype. The space program simply consumed technologies that existed in America. You could use that same reasoning to justify the war in Iraq or the actions of bin Laden.

Reality, those technologies existed because they had a purpose previously in society.

We had a tiny camera that took video on the space shuttle arm. What did we have? A portable camcorder. So clearly a light weight video camera came from the space program? Nonsense. The Japan also made those same products and sold them to Americans. But sometimes I hear someone claim the camcorder was due to the Space Shuttle. Those products might appear first in the space program. But the space program did not create the microprocessor, et al.

out loud laughter! sweet
I so want us to pull it off though.



The point is to get our eggs out of this single basket. Personally I don't have any robot blood in my veins so I advocate getting some of my own kind off planet for the survival of the species.

Somebody doesn't quite understand that the "space elevator" is from surface to low Earth orbit, not to the moon. The savings comes from having this sky-hook get mass to orbit with far less expenditure of energy than pushing it up with a rocket. From LEO, departing from higher in the gravity well takes, well, a lot less gas to do.

ha, somebody hasn't read Phillip Hose Farmer....

Well, it's obviously not to the Moon, but it's well past LEO. Unless we want the orbiting end to be constantly expending fuel just to stay in the sky, it's gotta be in geostationary orbit almost 36000 miles out. And that's where the center of mass has to be- half of the weight has to be past that.

Someone's read their Arthur C. Clarke, and someone else hasn't.

Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, and any number of science news items. I'm a big fan of the idea, but people have to realize that this is one hell of a massive object, orders of magnitude more difficult than anything mankind has done before. But instead of a reason not to do it, I'd say that's a reason to try.

UG's LEO elevator would have to be a freestanding tower over 60 miles tall, and that would be an engineering feat even more difficult than the tether.

The U.S. stuck the first flag in it, it's ours. End of discussion.

tw, you are quite incorrect, you know (well, apparently you don't). I can't rattle off all of the technology that has come directly from the space programme, but I have heard lists of examples given many times. Also, improvements on existing technology to make some new apparatus for space technology is still a valid example of how the space programme has improved our day-to-day lives. You need to cool down and look at this rationally. I am not trying to start an argument with you - I'm not as resilient as Bruce! :p

Just take a breath, and cool down. If you think that projects costing billions of dollars can exist without government support, then you are living in another world. This means that politics always comes into it. I agree with you that it would be better if politics kept out of science, but that is not going to happen in the real world.

Everything about space exploration helps our species and should be encouraged.

As for a moon-base, it must be done & we need to do all we can to keep the military as far from this endeavor as possible.

Which one posted example after example suggesting that bluesdave has fallen for classic myths. bluesdave - where are your examples? How do you know when not one example is even posted? Where is your proof? Why do you keep posting speculations without even a single supporting example? Bluesdave - I say this with the cold blooded attitude of one holding a gun to your head - or urinating on your bible.

Meanwhile we could build more 'space shuttles' or we could explore space. Which did we do? We can spend billons of dollars - as others advocate for our greater glory. Doing no science building another ISS? Or we can spend $hundreds of millions doing science advocated by innovators; using state of the art technology (especially robotics) to even advance mankind. Let's see. Ten+ useful science missions for same dollars that put people working on useful endeavors – ie all that technology currently exploring Mars. Or do work that only serves a political agenda. Which one do you advocate?

Posted many times previously were examples of science after science trashed only for the glory of that George Jr political agenda. Did you read those many and previous posts? Or do you just know a moon based, instead, is better science?

Based upon facts provided, a moon base apparently is not for science. A moon base for a political agenda? Where did the proposal come from? Scientists? Or from the White House? Little hint. The latter. Previously posted are numerous science experiments already canceled only for this political agenda. Did you read the list?

Which one has a history of doing things only for a political agenda and therefore making decisions we all regret? Too many good reasons why George Jr is nominated for worst American president. I fear this moon base is but another example especially because the idea comes from a leader whose tendencies are so similar to those found in communist governments. Why is working for the glory of a political agenda more important than the nation? As rkzenrage posts: which is why a George Jr legacy memorial moon base is being created at the expense of all those now canceled science missions.

I never said when I thought it should be done, or by whom.

Don't worry rkzenrage. tw, as much as he rants, never properly reads other people's posts, and usually misquotes them, and misinterprets their intentions. :rolleyes:

Well bigmouth, here are a few links from NASA covering exactly what I was talking about. Here is your proof:

Benefits of Space Exploration
Warning: use of this page will involve reading.

The Role of the Innovative Partnerships Program

Benefiting From Space Exploration

And bluesdave still does not cite a single example. He heard. Therefore he knows. For those who need examples (details) of one easily deceived by what he heard, read on. Blunt honest posts that confront the naive will be long and full of details - not soundbytes.

For those interested in the bottom line, jump to the last two paragraphs. 'Bigmouth' immediately implies bluesdave could not find an example. So he cites reams of reading that are completely irrelevant; especially his second citation.

Challenged to post one example, bluesdave posted this fluff No place does that citation claim a spinoff from manned spaceflight.

Listing book and paper titles proves something? bluesdave still provides not one example. He heard a book title and that is his proof.

Third citation says: So what new technology evolved only because man flew in space? Bluesdave: your citation demonstrates that 'less than 10% of NASA's budget’ does almost all science. Furthermore, that science is also being cut to pay for these Man to Mars programs. That transportation R&D is being eliminated or diminished along with other science such as atmospheric research. Again, good science being condemned to put a man on Mars. Bluesdave says this is good?

Bluesdave - please learn why George Jr could lie about Saddam and so many believed it. Apparently you are still young. You have fallen for the exact same logic that 'proved' Saddam had WMDs.

Other examples: "cabin pressure altitude monitor has been installed in commercial aircraft". "gas detector once used to monitor the space shuttle’s hydrogen propulsion system is now used by Ford Motor Company as it ventures to create a natural gas-powered car". Wow. None of these would have been developed if it were not for manned spaceflight? Obviously, bluesdave, you have never worked in design or development. Some of your examples already existed in some hazardous materials sites I once worked in long before I got there.

bluesdave - they have you by the short hairs. You really believe this stuff would never happen without spaceflight? Please first learn how technology is developed and evolves. Based upon your reasoning, then massive new products would be spunoff if the government only spend $billions developing a new grass seed.

Third citation is especially embarrassing and classic propaganda. It claims that communication and weather satellites would not exist without manned spaceflight. GOES-M exists because of something called TIROS. Communication satellites because of 1957 Sputnik and 1960 Echo 1. Did you always swallow the hook with line, and sinker? Or do you first question what you heard? They have you - bluesdave - citing myths as fact. Your own citation proves that these products would not exist without manned spaceflight? Nonsense. Your third citation exposes little grasp of history. and yet ISS still does virtually no science. At what point, bluesdave, does your credibility get attached to your citations?

Bluesdave - you were asked to cite a specific example. Every example already existed or was being developed anyway. Your own reasoning proves that government should spend $1 billion to develop a new grass seed. Why do you, bluesdave, so easily fall for hype and myth? Did you not learn from another fiasco created by same people and justified by these same myths: "Mission Accomplished"?

Bluesdave - you clearly are young. Learn from your mistake. You heard things and did not doubt. Your own citations are classic spin and (the third citation) even outright lies (how did manned spaceflight create Sputnik and Trios as you have claimed?). Bluesdave speculates these products existed due to manned spaceflight - by believing propaganda. And still bluesdave provides no examples. Bluesdave then starts a "bigmouth" insult. Apparently he knew he was caught speculating and is now angry. Manned Moonbase is not justified by product spinoffs. Bluesdave demonstrates that many somehow know a moonbase must be good - because embarrassing questions are not being asked. A common mistake made by the young.

Oh, right right right -- I sit corrected. Wasn't remembering all I could've.

Geostationary or geosychronous, you can do it either way. Synch needs a ... quite substantial hinge, and doubtless in order not to be a nuisance, only a very modest total angle of sweep -- a geo-not-quite-stationary, if you will.

This sort of thing also helps cure the geostationary satellite crowding problem, too, which is slowly getting worse: collecting the various comsat and navsat services into fewer, somewhat larger platforms gets the jobs done and clears the way for more later. This Jacob's Ladder makes one helluva cell phone antenna, no?

Btw, since when has tw any business objecting to being called a bigmouth? Is this not one of his most prominent traits, even more than his anti-Americanism? I offer the suggestion that his primary reason for down-talking a manned Lunar base is solely that Americans would be about the only people who could do it. Tw is never happy at any prospect of American success.

I rest my case. As I said, tw never reads carefully, other people's posts. I would have thought that when I said that I listened to JFK's famous speech in 1961, and watched Neil Armstrong live on TV in 1969, that it was obvious that I could not possibly be young (I know that you know this is true, and that you are using those words as an insult). You think it is quite OK to say that you are urinating on my Bible, yet you feel insulted when I call you a bigmouth. I said right at the beginning that I agreed with some of the things you said - ie. the use of robots, and all I did was try to point out that science is always at the mercy of politics, and that at least some good has come from the space programme. If you choose to ignore NASA's own documentation, then that says more about you than it does about me.

BTW, I never said that Bush's Moon base was a great idea, or that the ISS was either. I think that a small base on the Moon does make some sense, and at the time NASA was pushed to build the ISS there were many people at NASA who argued against the expense, saying that they could build a Moon base for less money, and do more robotic/automated research. Politics *did* override logic, but that does not mean that "man" has not benefited from the tools and materials that NASA has developed. You would have us throw this all away, just out of sheer petulance.

As a researcher, I have had to deal with political pressure on budgets. I understand from first hand experience how difficult it is to carry on research while keeping your political overlords happy. My background *is* in science. What's yours?

If the geosynchronous crowding problem was due to too many physical bodies, then Urbane Guerrilla would be correct. But then we apply realities.

The space between many satellites in the same slot is so large as to make that claim completely irrelevant. Meanwhile, as satellites aged (and lose functions), then multiple satellites moved into the same slot.

Restrictions on satellites are due to some factors listed below:
Slot size. Last time I looked, a satellite dish typically focused only to something like 2 degrees. That meant there were geosynchronous 180 slots around the earth.
Frequency: In each slot are specific frequencies which were divided into channels. For example, C band had twelve channels.
Polarization: each transmitted signal on each channel is polarized in horizontal and in vertical - for a total of 24 channels.

12 frequencies times 2 polarizations times 180 means a maximum 4320 transponders were available around the world just for C band. We do same for S band, Ku band, etc.

Satellites were limited by number of frequencies and by how focused antennas on both bird and earth could be focused. Those who only assumed would believe a larger platform would solve the congestion problem. No matter how large that platform (the bird), limitations of frequency and antenna pattern are the congestion.

Just another example of learning details so that speculation does not become fact.

Hmmm. All very interesting indeed! I volunteer to go - it would make a lot of people here on earth happy!

You pussy. :p
Start here or here or here.
You know he's full of shit, so go get 'em, tiger.

He's weaseling by saying a concept, or even working example existed before it was perfected, miniaturized, and made commercially viable, by the space program. It's like his argument that the German fighter planes had fuel injection back in WW II so GM should have had it after the war. Despite the fact that the system cost more than 10 cars and required hours of maintenance after only a few hours of flight.

And saying something would have been invented/developed anyway, is horseshit that can't be proved or disproved. There's tons of consumer products that were made better by materials and technology that was financed by NASA, because it was necessary for their use, but consumers could have got along without it. We had wool, we didn't need thinsulate, it just makes life more pleasant and created new products/jobs.

Your tagline says it all "tw Read? I only know how to write."

Thanks Bruce. Your links cover more directly what tw denied. I only had time to do a quick search on the NASA site, and came up with some incredible number of results, so I went through the first page of results and picked a few to quote back at him. I knew that if I had Googled I would have found more, but I was supposed to be researching for my project... :redface: You know, the sort of thing tw just does not seem to get - using science for the benefit of mankind. I know that you understand, and most Cellarites do too, I'm sure.

Most of those 'benefits' would exist anyway - with or without a manned space program. More useful spinoffs come from robotics and other technically more advanced missions.

Meanwhile. a small moonbase may have benefits for the same reason that Hubble needs periodic visits. Putting man in a moon base for six month visits makes no sense since even the ISS cannot (yet) perform any science for same reasons. What makes a small (temporary quarters) moonbase useful? Only if it becomes part of a larger science objective and only if constructed so that men can do something other than maintenance.

Currently no objective exists nor is defined. Decision for a Moonbase is really part of this 'need' to put a man on Mars - again without any strategic objective defined.

Tremendous science is ongoing in unmanned (robotic) missions only because the little people are defining questions and problems AND then top management (ie politicians) provide the support. This is how science prospers in places such as JPL and Greenbelt MD. That same story is made so obvious in "Apollo 13" (by Ron Howard). The murder of seven Challenger astronauts is a classic example of what happens when top management knows better than 'people who get the work done'. In Challenger, these MBA types could not find an engineer to approve the launch. So they only let 'managers' vote. Murder of seven people.

Same symptoms for destruction of science are apparent in this Moonbase complete with ongoing canceling of satellites and research programs in large numbers. Even trashed was the next LEO weather satellite so necessary for 10 day weather forecasting. Even that last 10% of NASA's budget where almost all NASA science occurs is being trashed only for a Man to Mars agenda.

Believe me. It I thought for one minute that this exploration was done for the advancement of mankind, I would be calling for it louder than anyone. I worked in that industry. Items that I designed (rescued) were even involved in Shuttle missons.

Wonderful science is being performed by science superstars such as Solar Max, Compton, Chandra, Hubble, and Spitzer. Neither space shuttle nor ISS is doing anything because both were created for agendas other than science. Space Shuttle has been an impediment to science, in part, because it barely gets out of earth's atmosphere - too pathetically low for most science work. Most science satellites are on their own because Shuttle meant an astronaut could provide neither service nor support. Just another example of hype causing impediment to science and the advancement of mankind.

Worse, the superstars are getting old. Comptom had to be abandoned - again because shuttle could not help. Few new birds are available to replace our aging fleet of superstars - thanks to money getting suck up by manned spaceflight and a silly manned Mars mission. And other useful birds (ie ultraviolet or frequencies between light and radio) cannot even be proposed.

So how many even knew of these superstars before assuming a moonbase would have a purpose?

A president with intelligence would have asked some inciteful questions such as Kennedy did in 1960. But as Iraq weapons inspector David Kay noted and Bob Woodward reported, "Kay left the meeting almost shocked as Bush's lack on inquisitiveness. Kay had a PhD and had taught at high levels, and he was used to being asked challenging, aggressive questions."

Bush cannot ask as a leader would do. He and his adminstration do not have grasp of reality. Somehow they know more than those who do the work. It explains why a Moonbase would be only for a poltical agenda as the constellation of superstars in science die without replacement.

Cited is but one constellation of science - deep space observatories. So many other constellations are also required by mankind. All unmaned. All function quite well without humans. All doing things that man cannot. All that need replacement. Any yet money is being sucked from all science for a manned spaceflight program that has no science purpose.

Why is this so relevant to The Cellar? Because 'common man' ignorance leaves science cannibalized by extremist politicians who are more worried about their legacy. Moonbase and Man to Mars is a creation of the White House; not of science. That is common konwledge. We all well know intelligence levels and 'appreciation of science' in that House. Still that alone is not enough to worry. What makes these manned spaceflights even more worrying is that reasons for those missions (the strategic objective) does not even exist.

Again we go right back to a fundamental concept in all management. What is the strategic objective? None is provided that promotes America, science, or mankind. Therein lies the symptom of a president more interested in his own legacy.

In every case, the technology was developed and then used by Nasa or was going to exist anyway. Using that same logic, we could also prove how $1 billion to develop a new grass seed cured human diseases, reduced global warming, discovered hidden archeological treasures, and discovered new miracle plastics. Same bullshit as in Bruce's three classic propaganda citations. Also not in Bruce's list are those other innovations stifled because so much money went to NASA.

Those citations are classic propaganda that works on those who also confuses a treadmill under a planes wheels with airspeed. Meanwhile, we used to have fun making up those same 'look how we saved the world' myths. Then see them published as 'science that would not happen if we did not do it'.

Clearly computers would not exist had the auto industry not spun off so much technoloy. Steel manufacturers used to prove that the plastic industry was only a spinoff from their innovations - when big steel was really doing no innovation. Amzaing how we could make this stuff up and get other to believe we were therefore saving the world with our spinoffs. Contest was to see which myth would actually get printed. Clearly Henry Ford saved the computer industry. It is nonsense and it is propaganda that works - just like proof that Saddam had WMDs.

Meanwhile, those who grasp reality would be more concerned about relevant science such as the constellation of deep space observatories. 10% of Nasa's budget does almost all the science. And that is being diminished for what? Tang? Lighweight blankets? These clearly would not have existed if not for a manned space program. Bull.

Let's start with one propaganda list that Bruce provides - proving how all this stuff would not exist if not for manned spaceflight:

GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - it was called project management software. So old that it was even used on the Nautilus in 1957. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

SEMICONDUCTOR CUBING - three dimensional ICs have been implements or experimented with for decades. Hitachi DRAM used some of those ideas in their 1980 memory chips. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - computer aided architectural analysis and same for airplanes did not exist 20 plus years ago? Bull. This stuff was being uses as soon as it was available first in other industries such as aircraft. Much of it was done with slide rules on the B-29. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

WINDOWS VISUAL NEWS READER (Win Vn) - clearly newsgroups and applications doing same on timesharing would not have existed without manned spaceflight. Clearly the technical documentation system we used to locate prints on the IBM mainframe - before PCs existed - is due to manned spaceflight. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

AIR QUALITY MONITOR - this stuff was required by CA semiconductor facilities generations ago where hazardous material venting via the common exhaust system might even create a Bhopal. Same was also necessary in places such as refineries. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

VIRTUAL REALITY - so clearly the military is going to NASA for this stuff and not to the gaming companies that they have been using for virtual reality simulations. Clearly even those crude 1950 and 1960 flight simulators used to teach pilots would not have existed without manned spaceflight. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

And so it goes. Most things in this world would not have happened without manned spaceflight. Also so easy to convince all that Saddam attacked the World Trade Center - using this same reasoning. It is called propaganda. It works on those who don't ask embarrassing questions. Bruce - I never expected you to be so gullible.

How many NASA spinoffs would have happened had we instead invested $1 blllion to develop a new grass seed. Using this propaganda, probably the same. Imagine the better strutural analysis program used to develop a better casing for the seed. Clearly we should spend a billion developing better grass.

You keep referring to "Manned Space Flight". NASA and the JPL are involved in much more than just that. "Manned Space Flight" is the public face of NASA, the part that gets the public to approve of NASA existing in the first place. The other things NASA and JPL do, have a much larger impact on us, but the general population doesn't identify with those programs.

If Congress tells us, "If we pass this bill/expenditure, we'll get a cure for cancer and a 42" flat screen TV for everyone", the public will be saying, "Yes, yes, I want a TV!" :rolleyes:

Manned spaceflight is the 90% of NASAs budget. The 10% included things such as JPL, new airplance designs, the Scram jet engine research, earth atmospheric research, Hubble, Martian Rovers, probes to Jupiter and Saturn, etc. Almost all science by NASA that is performed in that 10% that is being sucked dry only for the glory project - manned spaceflight which includes ISS and Man to Mars (also includes a Moonbase).

Blame the mistakes called Shuttle and ISS as an excuse to make the same mistake - a Moonbase? This is spin. But notice again what is being victimized in the process. From the NY Times of 9 Dec 2006: Both Shuttle and ISS have victimized the 10% of NASA's budget that does science. "... by cutting back on its science activities". And so we blame the Shuttle and ISS to further victimize science - doing more 'glory for no purpose' manned spaceflights to the moon.

You seem to refuse to accept the point that both I and Bruce have tried to put forward - that there is an emotional aspect to space exploration. At the risk of being flamed by you, yet again, I agree with much of what you say. There *is* a huge wastage of money being spent on projects that return a questionable level of benefits, and more deserving projects are canned because politicians want to gain points for supporting the "glory" missions.

As Bruce has pointed out, the public will choose a widescreen plasma TV, over a new space probe, every time. You can't fight human nature. Yes, you can try educating them, but experience shows me that the public wants to hear about the sparkle and flashy coloured lights, and are less interested in the science. The politicians know this, and use it against us. Welcome to my world.

I don't know how we can convince the public that scientific research is worth the money. They think it is great that a sports star gets paid millions of dollars a year, yet they are reluctant to spend more money on scientific research (I realise I am talking about different pools of money, but it is the public's opinion that I am targeting).

Nothing will change until the public realises that a good scientific research project is worth more to their lives, than a sports star's multi-million dollar salary. It is the same issue that you are raising about NASA.

Therefore you should be calling for more Hubbles, Martian Explorers, probes to Saturn, etc. Fabulous science AND better pictures comes from these. We have plenty of fireworks on 4th of July.

The only emotion from manned space is created in spin and myths. How quickly all that emotion faded after Apollo 11. Apollo 13 was completely ignored by the networks.

Meanwhile, tell me about this emotion? Tonight the Space Shuttle will be launched in a trajectory that might be viewable all up the East Coast. Notice how everyone is excited and talking about that unusual and so exciting event? Where is all this emotion? I don't see a single post here reminding everyone from FL to Maine to watch for the space shuttle. Where is this excitement and emotion? Where is this extremely rare and visible Space Shuttle launch attracting everyone’s excitement – if manned spaceflight is so emotionally important?

This 'emotion' attached to manned space is myth as even demonstrated by how we totally ignored Apollo 13 - until an event made real science necessary.

But again, what made Apollo 13 both exciting AND made that disaster into a success? In every case politicians were silence and people who come from where the work gets done both defined each problem AND initiated each solution. Even Lyndon Johnson was forced to sit outside in the car because astronauts wives demonstrated proper contempt for political games. All this science and success accomplished without any White House interference. And yet the White House suddenly knows a Moonbase is needed?

That lesson about manned spaceflight has been repeated continously. Instead, manned spaceflight should be integrated into a science program that has a strategic objective. Is emotion a strategic objective? Obviously not. Emotion only comes after a strategic objective is first defined. Frustration - the current emotion attached to Space Shuttles and ISS - is the emotion we have because politics (not science) created both missions.

BTW, what is the strategic objective of ISS? It has one. Do you know what the strategic objective of ISS is? The answer creates emotions. What is that answer? What is the purpose of ISS?

I agree - the public is fickled, and have a short attention span. What can you or I do about that?

I don't remember what the official mission statement was for the ISS, but at the time I was also *against* it. Interestingly, I cannot see a mission statement on the ISS Home Page.

ISS mission statement will not be on a NASA web site. Its purpose was to create a project that both US and Russia could cooperate on. Remember, this was end of the cold war. America needed a project that could build trust between these cold war adversaries. Winner - ISS. Back then it was called Space Station Freedom or something like that. Its design was so defective that Freedom was on the verge of being scrapped. Project name was changed to International Space Station to represent its new mission.

So why no science? ISS was hyped as a science project. But as eventually leaked to the press; even Freedom would require so much maintenance as to leave no time for science.

Reason for Mission Control in Russia? Again to promote trust. ISS intended only for political reasons.

One final part: Russian and American sections can be separated. But only the Russian part has an IMU and other functions to fly independently.

Meanwhile, Russia was also supposed to supply source code for that station so that Americans could learn how ISS works. Last I heard (and that was many years ago), Russia still had not provided that code many years after it was supposed to be delivered.

But again, ISS is not for science. ISS was created for politics. We can appreciate why ISS was created. But again, the 'by far' largest part of NASA's budget is attached to a political trophy. Now we are talking about man to Mars only for political reasons. What is worse - that Mars mission (and Moonbase) is now cannibalizing the little science that NASA does.

Like it or not: Shuttle, ISS, and now Man to Mars (and a Moonbase) all only for political reasons; at the expense of science and of mankind's most important objectives.

Well at least something profitable may come from a Moonbase. It may create a launch vehicle so that man (and science) can operate in MEO. As I understand it, MEO (Medium Earth Orbit) was what shuttle was supposed to do before politics redefined the Space Shuttle. (How's that from someone who does not read.)

Well, I would say that you are doing very well. I think that Bruce and I have achieved much improvement with our new pupil. :D

Yes, but still to emotional. Why he's even been seen cracking jokes in some threads. :rolleyes:

We are human. We made mistakes.

Absent from anything tw put in here, though hinted at by bluesdave, is any acknowledgement that what it will take to colonize space -- in any timeframe -- is, in a word, the passion. Tw deprecates that very idea, and ends up with a low and groundling frame of mind, which he somehow imagines is perfection. Ha!

"Earth is too small and fragile a basket to carry all our eggs in." -- Robert A. Heinlein.

I'll take the visionary over the alternative, thanks. Those are the ones that actually make the progress.