Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

The New Mars Rover Curiosity Options · View
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 2:21:52 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,637
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Yes, let's spend all our money on feeding the hungry. I'm sure those following us will appreciate it a lot when the world goes totally to shit thanks to a massive overpopulation and a lack of food to feed us all. Not to mention they'll greatly appreciate the human species going to shit when the sun explodes, destroys our planet and we don't have the technology to get the hell out before this solarsystem goes to bits. If you're gonna be a real pragmatic asshole about it all; the human race can handle 1 billion people starving to death. The human race cannot handle the sun imploding and destroying the earth before we have the technology to get the hell out.

This is the most selfish point of view possible and it's neither moral or ethical to think like that. But since the human race evoveled we have also gained the possibility to discard the need for helping everyone in the flock to survive. Individuality is a sign of evolution, either we like it or not. I give money to charity even though I really haven't got the money for it, but there are several reasons to why we need to build up the technology so we can go to other planets.

1) In the future the sun will blow up and even though it's a long way ahead we can't hold back technology just to feed EVERYONE on the planet. If all money went to that there wouldn't be anything left for us humans to evolve as a species. Remember; it was competition and sacrificing other groups and either killing or letting them starve that allowed the survivors to come to the point we are at today. It's the way the world works. We can say that it's shit and unfair, but sadly that's the way of life. Kids dying from cancer is unfair too.

2) What if we discover other planets where it's actually possible to grow food? What if we can start terraforming mars into one massive farm where the food can be shipped back and actually feed the entire world. The earth's population is so big that it's not possible to feed the entire planet if you're gonna please every environmentalist and save the rainforest treehugger out there.

When you win the lottery you might give some money to charity and to family, but you'll keep a good portion of it to give yourself a better life. We in the West did win the lottery by being born here, and like human nature dictates us, we give some of our winnings to the less fortunate but our main priority is to make our own lives better. It's the way it works. Don't like it, then it sucks to be you.

People need to get their head out of their arses and have a look in how the real world actually works. One thing is how we'd like it to work. I'd love to not having to see pictures of starving kids in Africa, kids used a human shields in Syria and so forth, but there's only so much we can do. It sucks big time, but that's just the way it is.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
jollylolly
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:06:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/24/2012
Posts: 719
Location: Texas, United States
I thought we were going to Mars to get more candy bars?? That's like 2 birds one stone. Bravo NASA.
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:12:02 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 7,664
Location: California
nazhinaz wrote:


Magical_felix wrote:
I think you need to elaborate on where you are getting that good ass chronic Naz.


SCIENCE.
Medical, physics and all related sciences, including biology.
If one has no access to scientific information, although using Information Technology, we all can join to hope, one does learn that.


So you get your chronic from a dude named Science? Where does this Science post up? I need a hook.

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:16:29 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Magical_felix wrote:


So you get your chronic from a dude named Science? Where does this Science post up? I need a hook.


SCIENCE!
Michael
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:37:25 PM

Rank: Author

Joined: 10/22/2011
Posts: 2,006
Location: Somewhere with Sun and Sea, United States
Lady, you remain my heroine....

Did you have that in reserve waiting for this moment? If so, then obviously you are even more astute then NASA!


Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:55:05 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 7,664
Location: California
LadyX wrote:


SCIENCE!


I better stick to the corners I know. This science seems like he's coming too hard with it for me.

Dani
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 6:46:45 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,187
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
1ball wrote:

Is this the Think Tank or the Feel Tank?


Haha. That reminded me of this one scene from Mean Girls (chick flick).




To put it bluntly, we're not morally obligated to ensure the well being of others. We do this because we can/want to or are seeking some sort of gratification. No one has to help someone when they're down. The well being of someone else isn't my problem unless I make it my problem. And anyone who doesn't spend their time helping others who are down shouldn't be judged for it. Or made to feel like shit because they don't feel obligated to do so. I personally wouldn't want someone to feel obligated to help me get my shit together if I was down.

But back to the issue at hand: I believe Curiosity's landing is amazing. And those complaining about money that could be used elsewhere should consider all of the opportunities this is creating. Even if this money weren't spent sending this little guy to Mars, I can guarantee you that it sure as hell wouldn't have been spent feeding the poor...at least not ALL of it.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:40:11 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - If that isn't the epitome of a wasteful federal government program, I'll kiss a fat lady's ass.

I just typed a whole slew of stuff and then I deleted it, not worth opening the entire can of worms about this.

So, I'll hand NASA a polite golf applause and just say (it's about time you upped your batting average landing probes on planets) you've only had 50 years of practice doing this kind of thing, and trillions of dollars of our tax money to do it with.

Yay

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 9:50:48 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 7,664
Location: California
WellMadeMale wrote:


I just typed a whole slew of stuff and then I deleted it

Yay


Thank you.

Dani
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:32:09 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,187
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Magical_felix wrote:


Thank you.


Lfunny

Thank you, sir, for such a hearty round of laughter.Applause



1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2012 10:36:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - If that isn't the epitome of a wasteful federal government program, I'll kiss a fat lady's ass.


It's really hard to see how it could possibly rank above SS and Medicare, so you just might want to pucker up. Given that we would have spent as much or more on a military equivalent of NASA to help us gain and hold control of the high ground during the Cold War, it's hard to see how NASA wouldn't deserve a good chunk of the credit for ending that. The USSR probably would have fallen much sooner if we hadn't abandoned the Apollo program in favor of federal entitlement programs.

Imagine if we found ourselves 5 years away from developing the technology needed to confront and deflect an asteroid or comet that was one year away. Maybe it wouldn't seem so wasteful then. We've probably all seen Space Cowboys, Armageddon and Deep Impact. Sure, those are Hollywood movies, but that doesn't mean we won't face a huge chunk of something falling on our heads one day. We can't exactly trust the private sector or the rest of the world to protect us from that.

Of course, we could have gotten a lot more for our money. Government programs always fall short of expectations for the price we pay for them. But part of that is our own fault. One NASA oops cancels a thousand attaboys. They have to spend so much preventing oopses that it brings new meaning to the term gold-plating. But there's always some yammerhead pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:12:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Ok, here are the cold hard numbers;

NASA budget from 1958-2008, $416 billion total spent, OR. $416,000,000,000.00
Welfare budget from 1967-2004, $9 Trillion total spent, OR. $9,000,000,000,000.00

Difference?
NASA cost the American taxpayer $816.00 over the life of the program and we have walked on the moon, explored our solar system and nearby planets.

Welfare will cost the American taxpayer $215,000.00 over their lifetime for goods and services rendered. We have more people on welfare now than we ever have. Since 1967 the number has always risen.

My conclusion; Money, or even the lack of it doesn't seem to be the problem for the poor and needy. If you added NASA' budget to the welfare budget it would not make the difference that so many claim. Number don't lie, NASA's budget isn't even 5% of what we spent on welfare and NASA works sometimes, welfare never seems to. So let's sacrifice something that works and give it to something that doesn't just make us feel better about ourselves?


Numbers used were from ask.com using simple questions in search bar.

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 9:39:52 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
1ball wrote:


It's really hard to see how it could possibly rank above SS and Medicare, so you just might want to pucker up. Given that we would have spent as much or more on a military equivalent of NASA to help us gain and hold control of the high ground during the Cold War, it's hard to see how NASA wouldn't deserve a good chunk of the credit for ending that. The USSR probably would have fallen much sooner if we hadn't abandoned the Apollo program in favor of federal entitlement programs.

Imagine if we found ourselves 5 years away from developing the technology needed to confront and deflect an asteroid or comet that was one year away. Maybe it wouldn't seem so wasteful then. We've probably all seen Space Cowboys, Armageddon and Deep Impact. Sure, those are Hollywood movies, but that doesn't mean we won't face a huge chunk of something falling on our heads one day. We can't exactly trust the private sector or the rest of the world to protect us from that.

Of course, we could have gotten a lot more for our money. Government programs always fall short of expectations for the price we pay for them. But part of that is our own fault. One NASA oops cancels a thousand attaboys. They have to spend so much preventing oopses that it brings new meaning to the term gold-plating. But there's always some yammerhead pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives.


There's the key word in your entire post above. Now if you're insinuating that I am a yammerhead, that's fine by me. I've stated my beliefs and positions repeatedly on this site and many others since 1998 and frankly, I've flushed bigger turds than you down the internet toilet and out to the www lagoon, as well - both here and elsewhere. I got my bigboy pants on, 1ball, let's discuss.

Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program. Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios - I mean concrete 'things' which are now contributing to our civilization (aside from thousands of groovy color and B&W photographs) - many of them - doctored with false color images for our bling/bling viewing enjoyment. evil4

Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang). clown

I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?

Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?

If so, I've missed those memos.

*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:28:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Haha. That reminded me of this one scene from Mean Girls (chick flick).




To put it bluntly, we're not morally obligated to ensure the well being of others. We do this because we can/want to or are seeking some sort of gratification. No one has to help someone when they're down. The well being of someone else isn't my problem unless I make it my problem. And anyone who doesn't spend their time helping others who are down shouldn't be judged for it. Or made to feel like shit because they don't feel obligated to do so. I personally wouldn't want someone to feel obligated to help me get my shit together if I was down.

But back to the issue at hand: I believe Curiosity's landing is amazing. And those complaining about money that could be used elsewhere should consider all of the opportunities this is creating. Even if this money weren't spent sending this little guy to Mars, I can guarantee you that it sure as hell wouldn't have been spent feeding the poor...at least not ALL of it.

How callous a human being can be?
If a man besides me is hungry or dying with thurst, does it not make obligatory as a human being, to feed or quench thirst?
If I can not, what difference has humanity has brought into me?
Besides human being, we also have a social obligation. Living in a society, we do and must contribute to less fortunate.
I do not subscribe that evolution is merely survival of the fitest.
Survival of the fitest would have emeant that in case of exteme hunger, I should go eat my siblings or offspring.
Can any one think of that? Will law permit that? Woud society approve of it?
Let me remind, French law prosecuted the reporters for not assisting Princess Diana when she was mortally hurt.
Thats human law. Thats what we all human beings must be committed to; wether there are laws for that or not.
And I do fully endorse the view that we should think of the day when billions of years hence, the sun will engulf the World.
But if one follows the logic propounded for the so called evolution, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER FOR HUNDRED RATHER MILLIONS OF GENERATIONS AWAY HUMAN BEINGS?
We should be bothered about billions of years hence human beings; I fully agree with that.
1ball
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:55:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


There's the key word in your entire post above.


Is it not the responsibility of governments to imagine the consequences of failing to prepare for possible catastrophes? Is it not their responsibility to weigh risks and prepare for worst case scenarios? Those are not rhetorical questions, so please don't avoid answering them. Please give them the respect they deserve by providing answers that are not evasive, irrelevant or dishonest.

Quote:
Now if you're insinuating that I am a yammerhead, that's fine by me. I've stated my beliefs and positions repeatedly on this site and many others since 1998 and frankly, I've flushed bigger turds than you down the internet toilet and out to the www lagoon, as well - both here and elsewhere. I got my bigboy pants on, 1ball, let's discuss.


It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe you've been a yammerhead since 1998, but the yammerhead remark was directed to all of those who yammer away about irrelevancies when there's a real topic to discuss. Sure there were failures. Learning from failures is part of the process of achieving progress. Demanding perfection is a tool that yammerheads use to cause analysis paralysis. So yeah, let's discuss. We'll see if you can commit to a discussion rather than just tactics of avoidance.

Quote:
Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program.


That would take more work than I'm prepared to commit. For me, it was sufficient that the province of Space stayed in civilian hands. Factions of the USN and the USAF wanted it. US Space Command would have been a much bigger reality, because the Soviet Union (remember them?) could not be trusted to not use space for strategic military advantage.

Quote:
Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios


Again, answer my questions. You might choose to believe that NASA never had a national defense purpose or a foreign policy purpose. It had and still has both. Much like the British navy in the 1800s, NASA is an extension of US policy for the protection of US interests. Isn't that a valid role of a government?

Quote:
Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang).


Why should I let you dictate the terms of validity? One big one should suffice. The US knew that the Soviet Union was on a path to developing the capability to launch nukes to Lunar orbit, where they could sit, cold and dark, and be a threat to MAD (remember that?). They could execute a burn on the far side of the Moon and come screaming into Earth virtually undetectable and unstoppable unless we kept up in technology. We were in an arms race and while you might believe we didn't need to win it, we had people we hired for that express purpose. By proving we were ready and able to beat them in launch capability, we took the Moon away from them. We also caused them to spend a lot of money and while that may not have been the sole cause of their economic collapse, you would have a hard time proving it wasn't a factor.

Quote:
I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?


The landing was to claim the Moon as US property. It's the high ground. Ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? The Moon is still US property and will be until some other country gets there and presses a claim that we've abandoned it. There's a flag there. That's what that flag means.

Quote:
Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?


Maybe. Many advancements in many sciences are traceable to NASA expenditures. Many of those would have happened eventually anyway, but timing, as in my aforementioned big rock from Space example, might make all the difference as to whether the society survives.

Quote:
If so, I've missed those memos.


I have no doubt that you might have missed much.

Quote:
*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).


Then I would suggest you stop talking about flushing turds. I have no interest in a flame war. I am interested in why you would ignore the strategic benefits of gaining and holding the high ground from capture by a totalitarian enemy. I'm also interested in why you think NASA hasn't advanced many of the technologies we might need in the future. So why don't we keep this discussion out in the open? We'll see who does the better job of keeping it in the realm of a valid discussion for a think tank.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:58:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

How callous a human being can be?
If a man besides me is hungry or dying with thurst, does it not make obligatory as a human being, to feed or quench thirst?
If I can not, what difference has humanity has brought into me?
Besides human being, we also have a social obligation. Living in a society, we do and must contribute to less fortunate.
I do not subscribe that evolution is merely survival of the fitest.
Survival of the fitest would have emeant that in case of exteme hunger, I should go eat my siblings or offspring.
Can any one think of that? Will law permit that? Woud society approve of it?
Let me remind, French law prosecuted the reporters for not assisting Princess Diana when she was mortally hurt.
Thats human law. Thats what we all human beings must be committed to; wether there are laws for that or not.
And I do fully endorse the view that we should think of the day when billions of years hence, the sun will engulf the World.
But if one follows the logic propounded for the so called evolution, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER FOR HUNDRED RATHER MILLIONS OF GENERATIONS AWAY HUMAN BEINGS?
We should be bothered about billions of years hence human beings; I fully agree with that.


I noticed you're still avoiding my questions. evil4

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dani
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:23:41 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,187
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
nazhinaz wrote:

How callous a human being can be?

As callous as they choose to be. There's that whole freewill thing, remember?

nazhinaz wrote:

If a man besides me is hungry or dying with thurst, does it not make obligatory as a human being, to feed or quench thirst?


Nope. You're not obligated to do a damn thing.

nazhinaz wrote:

If I can not, what difference has humanity has brought into me?


Umm...what?


nazhinaz wrote:
Besides human being, we also have a social obligation. Living in a society, we do and must contribute to less fortunate.

Says who?

nazhinaz wrote:

I do not subscribe that evolution is merely survival of the fitest.


That's a nice opinion you got there. Let's see some facts. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest. It's survival of the most resourceful. Ever heard of the fable of the bird and the pebbles? The bird was thirsty, but the water level was too low for him to reach down and drink. What did the bird do? He added pebbles to the water until it rose high enough for him to drink. Did he use strength? No. Did he use camouflage? No. He used his knowledge and immediate resources.

nazhinaz wrote:

Survival of the fitest would have emeant that in case of exteme hunger, I should go eat my siblings or offspring
.

That's totally up to you. If you wanna take that route, knock yourself out.


nazhinaz wrote:
Can any one think of that? Will law permit that? Woud society approve of it?

Will law permit cannibalism (you know, the eating of your siblings and offspring as referenced in your previous statement)? Of course not. And law also can't force me to help the less fortunate. I'm an American. By law, I pay taxes. A portion of my tax dollars go to welfare programs and health programs that take care of the "less fortunate" as well as those who like to exploit the system. That's as far as the law can go in making me help the less fortunate. The law can't force me to look at the homeless guy on the side of the road and offer him a dollar or a sandwich or a sip of my water. And as far as society's approval goes, what's that got to do with anything? If society's approval meant anything, there wouldn't be homosexuals, transsexuals, interracial relationships, desegregated schools, mini skirts, etc.


nazhinaz wrote:
Let me remind, French law prosecuted the reporters for not assisting Princess Diana when she was mortally hurt.

Yes, because those same reporters were directly involved in the accident. If you remember correctly, the crash was caused because she and those involved were fleeing the paparazzi.

nazhinaz wrote:

Thats human law. Thats what we all human beings must be committed to; wether there are laws for that or not.

Yes. Human beings are individuals. With their own morals and their own standards. I have a set of morals and standards that I live by that others may or may not agree with. I can't judge another based on the standards that I hold myself to, and vice versa. Some people were raised to lend a helping hand to those in need. Others were raised to believe that those in need had every opportunity to help themselves but failed to do so. Human law/obligations are different for everyone. You can't expect everyone to conduct themselves according to the way you conduct yourself. That's absurd. Everyone has their own....wait for it....MORAL OBLIGATIONS! See? We've come full circle.

nazhinaz wrote:


But if one follows the logic propounded for the so called evolution, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER FOR HUNDRED RATHER MILLIONS OF GENERATIONS AWAY HUMAN BEINGS?


Umm...what?



I personally help the less fortunate as much as I can and to the best of my ability (I don't like doing anything half-assed). But that's because of MY moral obligations and standards. It's not fair for me to point my fingers at others and suggest that they assume the same mind as me. Everyone lives according to their own morals and standards and the only outside influence is the laws that are sanctioned to every single one of us. You want to be a hero and save everyone? Great. Kudos to you. That's quite noble of you. But it's completely unfair and absolutely ridiculous for you to want everyone to think and feel as you do. You shouldn't go around dumping the burden you CHOOSE to carry on everyone else.




WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 3:18:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - If that isn't the epitome of a wasteful federal government program, I'll kiss a fat lady's ass.


1ball wrote:
It's really hard to see how it could possibly rank above SS and Medicare, so you just might want to pucker up. Given that we would have spent as much or more on a military equivalent of NASA to help us gain and hold control of the high ground during the Cold War, it's hard to see how NASA wouldn't deserve a good chunk of the credit for ending that. The USSR probably would have fallen much sooner if we hadn't abandoned the Apollo program in favor of federal entitlement programs.

Imagine if we found ourselves 5 years away from developing the technology needed to confront and deflect an asteroid or comet that was one year away. Maybe it wouldn't seem so wasteful then. We've probably all seen Space Cowboys, Armageddon and Deep Impact. Sure, those are Hollywood movies, but that doesn't mean we won't face a huge chunk of something falling on our heads one day. We can't exactly trust the private sector or the rest of the world to protect us from that.

Of course, we could have gotten a lot more for our money. Government programs always fall short of expectations for the price we pay for them. But part of that is our own fault. One NASA oops cancels a thousand attaboys. They have to spend so much preventing oopses that it brings new meaning to the term gold-plating. But there's always some yammerhead pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives.


WellMadeMale wrote:
Imagine - There's the key word in your entire post above.



1ball wrote:
Is it not the responsibility of governments to imagine the consequences of failing to prepare for possible catastrophes? Is it not their responsibility to weigh risks and prepare for worst case scenarios? Those are not rhetorical questions, so please don't avoid answering them. Please give them the respect they deserve by providing answers that are not evasive, irrelevant or dishonest.


In your first obnoxious reply directly to me, you never once posed me a question. You did bloviate several statements however, which I chose to ignore responding to, because I don't agree with your stated conclusions. But you did not ask me any questions. You merely stated your opinions. And we are all entitled to those, no matter how pompous or errant they may read to other members of your audience.

Since I typed that NASA was the epitome of a waste of Federal Gov resources (and that is a negative) while I mentioned no positive NASA contributions - forgive me for thinking that you were labeling me a yammerhead. It sure appeared that you had.

WellMadeMale wrote:

Now if you're insinuating that I am a yammerhead, that's fine by me. I've stated my beliefs and positions repeatedly on this site and many others since 1998 and frankly, I've flushed bigger turds than you down the internet toilet and out to the www lagoon, as well - both here and elsewhere. I got my bigboy pants on, 1ball, let's discuss.


1ball wrote:
It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe you've been a yammerhead since 1998, but the yammerhead remark was directed to all of those who yammer away about irrelevancies when there's a real topic to discuss. Sure there were failures. Learning from failures is part of the process of achieving progress. Demanding perfection is a tool that yammerheads use to cause analysis paralysis. So yeah, let's discuss. We'll see if you can commit to a discussion rather than just tactics of avoidance.


In my original reply, I never once mentioned any of NASAs collective (Apollo/Shuttle program) full or partial mishaps or obvious fuck ups (like confusing metric unit - Newtons with Imperial - Pound Force in 1998 with their Mars Climate Orbiter, ahem...Mishap, the one where they lost $655 million taxpayer invested bucks (no return on investment there). I don't demand perfection, I expect there to be failures, setbacks and sideways leaps in the march forward to success. It's the obvious fuck ups like MCO which really give me pause (and should bother you too).

Frankly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been greater loss of life in the 50 years of NASA research, experimentation and implementation. Obviously, removing live astronauts from the equation is a good thing for many missions which can be accomplished by robotic probes. Keeps the costs lower (in terms of lives and bucks).

And this time, I'm sure you're implying I'm a yammerhead. evil4 That's cool, I feel you're showing exactly what you are too. You're slinging a slew of crap hoping it will hit something, thinking you're posing questions, when you're simply making preposterous opinionated statements.

Incidentally, I'm not one to avoid bullshit artists, either.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program.


1ball wrote:
That would take more work than I'm prepared to commit. For me, it was sufficient that the province of Space stayed in civilian hands. Factions of the USN and the USAF wanted it. US Space Command would have been a much bigger reality, because the Soviet Union (remember them?) could not be trusted to not use space for strategic military advantage.


Mmmhmm, just as I thought. You accuse me of avoiding your questions (when you never asked any of me) while dodging my questions, because why? Because you don't want to commit the time to do so (engage in civil discussion) and you sure don't want to feel dictated to. You like to own the control. I know your type.

NASA was created to become the civilian authority over the space program, but it was first and has always been - a military operation. The US Military has always had priority. There have been dozens more secret military payloads delivered to orbit (mostly surveillance satellites) than there have been 'peaceful experimental pure science' missions. The USA was the first to militarize space, and America owns everything inside the Van Allen belts. That is what NASA's primary missions have been all about,(this is just one example). It hasn't been only about going to other moons or asteroids or planets. Sure, they do a little of that, but they do a helluva lot more to ensure that the Pentagon stays large & in charge.

GPS navigation might be about the only direct benefit for our society, as a result of NASA endeavors. Other domestic satellites for cool things like HBO/sat'l & cable tv, data & telecommunications etc... those were all put up there via private corporate investments & launches.

As a matter of fact, it is way outside of NASAs charter to do anything for or with - corporate for profit enterprises. But they are deep in bed with the US Military - always have been, always will be.

US Space Command was disbanded in 2002 - about 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, so I don't know what the BS you're tossing around there, means. But I reiterate - the US Military owns the orbits around the Earth, and they have long ago militarized the skies. You think SDI simply went away when Reagan said he was going to stop the R&D? lmao - whatever. USSPACECOM disbanded in 2002 and the USSTRATCOM picked up the ball on 10/01/2002. We just changed the names/acronyms. And unless I'm mistaken, the former Soviet Union (who may have some weaponized stuff in orbit too) didn't collapse in 2002.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios


1ball wrote:
Again, answer my questions. You might choose to believe that NASA never had a national defense purpose or a foreign policy purpose. It had and still has both. Much like the British navy in the 1800s, NASA is an extension of US policy for the protection of US interests. Isn't that a valid role of a government?


You never asked me any questions. You've been arguing with Naz (as does most everyone else on this forum, so welcome to the club).

Refer to the above paragraphs I just posted here - as to what I choose to believe. The protection of US citizens & infrastructure & resources are a valid role of government. But first you gotta have some working infrastructure and resources to protect. Notice I call them resources - you guys call it welfare - as if that is some dirty word. You use the word - interests, I use the words civilians, citizens, civilization.

What about the protection of US citizens via the resources of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid - those safety net products for the less wealthy citizens of this country. Those are wastes according to you and others, whereas providing for not just the common defense, but for building and sustaining the lone super power in the world - by gawd, we need MOAR of that shit.

The United States of America, by virtue of their near monopoly of having the most advanced military technology in orbit...is the only super power on the planet at this time. And we have been since the early 1970s, 20 years before the collapse of the former Soviet Union. But America spending itself into this massive debt that we have seen ourselves stuck into since the early part of the Reagan administration - wasn't what collapsed the Soviet Union. Massive NASA spending didn't collapse the Soviets. That's all blathering bullshit, made up either in your mind, or some right wingnut propaganda site you frequent.

All our massive borrowing and spending has done - is bring the USA to the brink of financial collapse, where we've been teetering since 2002. Our answer to that - start more wars we cannot afford and scare the shit out of everyone on the planet (but that's another topic).

WellMadeMale wrote:
Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang).


1ball wrote:
Why should I let you dictate the terms of validity? One big one should suffice. The US knew that the Soviet Union was on a path to developing the capability to launch nukes to Lunar orbit, where they could sit, cold and dark, and be a threat to MAD (remember that?). They could execute a burn on the far side of the Moon and come screaming into Earth virtually undetectable and unstoppable unless we kept up in technology. We were in an arms race and while you might believe we didn't need to win it, we had people we hired for that express purpose. By proving we were ready and able to beat them in launch capability, we took the Moon away from them. We also caused them to spend a lot of money and while that may not have been the sole cause of their economic collapse, you would have a hard time proving it wasn't a factor.


Okay, I get it - you don't like being out of control. Your One Big One is that alright. One Big BullShit theory proposed and trumpeted by blowhard NeoCons and Reaganites (one in the same critter in my opinion) to justify the outrageous spending which they implemented in the 1980s, then Dumbya ramped up for all 8 years of his administration. And all of that spending went into the US Military Industrial Complex (very little actually went to NASA) Very little spending went into any R&D for a lot of sciences (except SDI - but again, that's all MIC envelope stuff). Your little nightmare scenario you mention above - I've read and heard that fairytale bullshit in numerous right wing locations since 1982 and it doesn't hold water. It didn't then, it sure as hell doesn't now.

NASA didn't have shit to do with the Soviet Union failing, as a matter of fact - NASA was in cooperation with the Soviets in space in 1975 with Apollo/Soyuz. Not exactly bitter enemies were 'we'.

It is also fairly apparent that you don't know anything about the capacity of the Soviet Union to launch and land probes on the Moon, Mars or Venus. They've done it - successfully. More than a few times. It isn't like America just totally blew the Soviets out of the water, 1Ball. I think you need to brush up on your reading, pardner.

We, America - didn't take the Moon away from anyone, 1Ball. What kind of nonsense is that?

WellMadeMale wrote:
I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?


1ball wrote:
The landing was to claim the Moon as US property. It's the high ground. Ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? The Moon is still US property and will be until some other country gets there and presses a claim that we've abandoned it. There's a flag there. That's what that flag means.


One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind - doesn't sound like Armstrong was claiming the Moon as USA sovereign soil. Your logic that the American flag on the moon means that it is solely US property and no other nation can go there or do anything to it without our express consent - is as preposterous a statement as I've read on this board in a long time. I suppose you think the same thing goes for Antarctica? We have a base and a flag planted there too. I've not read Heinlein's work of fiction, I don't know how his sci-fi novel means jackshit to your statement.
I've read the 1979 Moon Treaty, which the USA refuses to ratify still - the Moon belongs to all of mankind, not one nation, 1Ball. Where do you get this shit from?

WellMadeMale wrote:
Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?


1ball wrote:
Maybe. Many advancements in many sciences are traceable to NASA expenditures. Many of those would have happened eventually anyway, but timing, as in my aforementioned big rock from Space example, might make all the difference as to whether the society survives.


Your big rock from Space example is another work of fiction, similar to Heinlein's - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Fiction. Made up. BS

WellMadeMale wrote:
If so, I've missed those memos.


1ball wrote:
I have no doubt that you might have missed much.


Uh huh...

WellMadeMale wrote:
*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).


1ball wrote:
Then I would suggest you stop talking about flushing turds. I have no interest in a flame war. I am interested in why you would ignore the strategic benefits of gaining and holding the high ground from capture by a totalitarian enemy. I'm also interested in why you think NASA hasn't advanced many of the technologies we might need in the future. So why don't we keep this discussion out in the open? We'll see who does the better job of keeping it in the realm of a valid discussion for a think tank.


Is that what landing rovers on the planet Mars is all about then? Gaining the high ground against totalitarians and terrorists and make believe enemies? The USA hasn't had any nationalistic enemies to worry about since the early 1990s. Are our bankers - the Chinese - a country we have to worry about? Who is threatening our way of life now? For fucks sakes 1Ball - be rational.

NASA may have advanced a lot of the technologies we 'might need' in the future. But the Sun is not supposed to go nova for at least another 5 billion years. But lets say it isn't supposed to die out for even another 100 million years.

That's a lot of time to get our asses off this planet and out to another M class watery rock, orbiting another habitable zone around another G-class star. In the mean time, we could all take a deep breath and be less Super Powery towards the rest of the nations of this world, and concentrate on technologies which would provide all of us in the here and now and the next 20, 40, 60, 100 years...with a better life.

I think America has enough weapons platforms and surveillance satellites orbiting above our heads, threatening the other nations of the world (and some of its own residents), as it is.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
1ball
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:15:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:

In your first obnoxious reply directly to me, you never once posed me a question.


Did I claim to have? That's not a rhetorical question either, so...

Quote:
Since I typed that NASA was the epitome of a waste of Federal Gov resources (and that is a negative) while I mentioned no positive NASA contributions - forgive me for thinking that you were labeling me a yammerhead. It sure appeared that you had.


Well, this might be a case of whether the shoe fits.

Quote:
In my original reply, I never once mentioned any of NASAs collective (Apollo/Shuttle program) full or partial mishaps or obvious fuck ups (like confusing metric unit - Newtons with Imperial - Pound Force in 1998 with their Mars Climate Orbiter, ahem...Mishap, the one where they lost $655 million taxpayer invested bucks (no return on investment there). I don't demand perfection, I expect there to be failures, setbacks and sideways leaps in the march forward to success. It's the obvious fuck ups like MCO which really give me pause (and should bother you too).


Again, this might be a case of whether the shoe fits. You're dwelling on the irrelevant.

Quote:
Frankly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been greater loss of life in the 50 years of NASA research, experimentation and implementation. Obviously, removing live astronauts from the equation is a good thing for many missions which can be accomplished by robotic probes. Keeps the costs lower (in terms of lives and bucks).


More dwelling on the irrelevant.

Quote:
And this time, I'm sure you're implying I'm a yammerhead.


I admit to becoming more convinced that the shoe fits.

Quote:
That's cool, I feel you're showing exactly what you are too. You're slinging a slew of crap hoping it will hit something, thinking you're posing questions, when you're simply making preposterous opinionated statements.


I'm pretty sure I'm actually posing questions and I'm pretty sure you're avoiding answering them, at least so far.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program.

1ball wrote:
That would take more work than I'm prepared to commit. For me, it was sufficient that the province of Space stayed in civilian hands. Factions of the USN and the USAF wanted it. US Space Command would have been a much bigger reality, because the Soviet Union (remember them?) could not be trusted to not use space for strategic military advantage.

Quote:
Mmmhmm, just as I thought. You accuse me of avoiding your questions


I asked two questions. I anticipated that you would avoid answering them (which turned out to be true so far) and I took away a common excuse for not answering questions by pointing out that they weren't rhetorical. Where is there an accusation in any of that?

By the way, that was not a rhetorical question either, so...

Quote:
(when you never asked any of me) while dodging my questions,


Do you see a question in "Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program."? I don't. I see you trying to avoid a truth.

Quote:
because why? Because you don't want to commit the time to do so (engage in civil discussion) and you sure don't want to feel dictated to. You like to own the control. I know your type.


I'm more than willing to commit the time to engage in civil discussion, I'm just not willing to commit the time it would require to research "all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program." Especially when that would be irrelevant.

Quote:
NASA was created to become the civilian authority over the space program, but it was first and has always been - a military operation. The US Military has always had priority. There have been dozens more secret military payloads delivered to orbit (mostly surveillance satellites) than there have been 'peaceful experimental pure science' missions. The USA was the first to militarize space, and America owns everything inside the Van Allen belts. That is what NASA's primary missions have been all about,(this is just one example). It hasn't been only about going to other moons or asteroids or planets. Sure, they do a little of that, but they do a helluva lot more to ensure that the Pentagon stays large & in charge.


Relevance?

Quote:
GPS navigation might be about the only direct benefit for our society, as a result of NASA endeavors. Other domestic satellites for cool things like HBO/sat'l & cable tv, data & telecommunications etc... those were all put up there via private corporate investments & launches.


Relevance? I seem to remember some shuttle payloads that were private. And there was that Intelsat repair mission.

Quote:
As a matter of fact, it is way outside of NASAs charter to do anything for or with - corporate for profit enterprises. But they are deep in bed with the US Military - always have been, always will be.


Is this just filler to avoid answering my two questions?

Quote:
US Space Command was disbanded in 2002 - about 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, so I don't know what the BS you're tossing around there, means. But I reiterate - the US Military owns the orbits around the Earth, and they have long ago militarized the skies. You think SDI simply went away when Reagan said he was going to stop the R&D? lmao - whatever. USSPACECOM disbanded in 2002 and the USSTRATCOM picked up the ball on 10/01/2002. We just changed the names/acronyms. And unless I'm mistaken, the former Soviet Union (who may have some weaponized stuff in orbit too) didn't collapse in 2002.


You seem to be babbling over semantics.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios

1ball wrote:
Again, answer my questions. You might choose to believe that NASA never had a national defense purpose or a foreign policy purpose. It had and still has both. Much like the British navy in the 1800s, NASA is an extension of US policy for the protection of US interests. Isn't that a valid role of a government?

Quote:
You never asked me any questions.


Yes I did, but I see they went right over your head, so I'll ask them again.

Is it not the responsibility of governments to imagine the consequences of failing to prepare for possible catastrophes? Is it not their responsibility to weigh risks and prepare for worst case scenarios?

Quote:
Refer to the above paragraphs I just posted here - as to what I choose to believe. The protection of US citizens & infrastructure & resources are a valid role of government.


Finally something that comes close to answering my questions. So protecting the US from Soviet nukes was a valid role of NASA? And becoming prepared for big rocks falling from Space is a valid role for NASA?

Those questions aren't rhetorical either, a simple "Yes." to each would do.

Quote:
But first you gotta have some working infrastructure and resources to protect. Notice I call them resources - you guys call it welfare - as if that is some dirty word. You use the word - interests, I use the words civilians, citizens, civilization.


Babbling?

Quote:
What about the protection of US citizens via the resources of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid


Seems like a role for state governments to me. Did Europe get it wrong when it didn't put those under control of the EU government? Not a rhetorical question.

Quote:
- those safety net products for the less wealthy citizens of this country. Those are wastes according to you and others, whereas providing for not just the common defense, but for building and sustaining the lone super power in the world - by gawd, we need MOAR of that shit.


You seem quite anxious to tell me what I think. Perhaps you should ask more questions if you're interested in what I think.

Quote:
The United States of America, by virtue of their near monopoly of having the most advanced military technology in orbit...is the only super power on the planet at this time. And we have been since the early 1970s, 20 years before the collapse of the former Soviet Union. But America spending itself into this massive debt that we have seen ourselves stuck into since the early part of the Reagan administration - wasn't what collapsed the Soviet Union. Massive NASA spending didn't collapse the Soviets. That's all blathering bullshit, made up either in your mind, or some right wingnut propaganda site you frequent.


It seems to me that you're only spouting opinion there.

Quote:
All our massive borrowing and spending has done - is bring the USA to the brink of financial collapse, where we've been teetering since 2002. Our answer to that - start more wars we cannot afford and scare the shit out of everyone on the planet (but that's another topic).


Straying a bit off topic. I wonder why.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang).

1ball wrote:
Why should I let you dictate the terms of validity? One big one should suffice. The US knew that the Soviet Union was on a path to developing the capability to launch nukes to Lunar orbit, where they could sit, cold and dark, and be a threat to MAD (remember that?). They could execute a burn on the far side of the Moon and come screaming into Earth virtually undetectable and unstoppable unless we kept up in technology. We were in an arms race and while you might believe we didn't need to win it, we had people we hired for that express purpose. By proving we were ready and able to beat them in launch capability, we took the Moon away from them. We also caused them to spend a lot of money and while that may not have been the sole cause of their economic collapse, you would have a hard time proving it wasn't a factor.

Quote:
Okay, I get it - you don't like being out of control. Your One Big One is that alright. One Big BullShit theory proposed and trumpeted by blowhard NeoCons and Reaganites (one in the same critter in my opinion) to justify the outrageous spending which they implemented in the 1980s,


No actually. The launch of Sputnik showed that the Soviets were close to being able to militarize space. They also launched probes to the Moon and neighboring planets. IIRC, one of them crashed on the Moon just before the Apollo 11 landing. They were planning to have the capability of Lunar orbit insertion for nuke-sized masses. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all made aware of that threat to MAD. I first heard about it when I was in high school, considerably before 1980.

Quote:
then Dumbya ramped up for all 8 years of his administration. And all of that spending went into the US Military Industrial Complex (very little actually went to NASA) Very little spending went into any R&D for a lot of sciences (except SDI - but again, that's all MIC envelope stuff). Your little nightmare scenario you mention above - I've read and heard that fairytale bullshit in numerous right wing locations since 1982 and it doesn't hold water. It didn't then, it sure as hell doesn't now.


Babble.

Quote:
NASA didn't have shit to do with the Soviet Union failing, as a matter of fact - NASA was in cooperation with the Soviets in space in 1975 with Apollo/Soyuz. Not exactly bitter enemies were 'we'.


By 1975, our flag was on the Moon and the USSR knew they couldn't outspend us to take control. They still put up MIR and spent a lot on it. They built the Energia and the Buran, in an attempt to stay competitive with the US.

Quote:
It is also fairly apparent that you don't know anything about the capacity of the Soviet Union to launch and land probes on the Moon, Mars or Venus.


Quite the contrary. Not only do I know that, I know that those launches did much to convince our strategists that the USSR's space program was a threat to MAD.

Quote:
They've done it - successfully. More than a few times. It isn't like America just totally blew the Soviets out of the water, 1Ball. I think you need to brush up on your reading, pardner.


Babble.

Quote:
We, America - didn't take the Moon away from anyone, 1Ball. What kind of nonsense is that?


We got there first. Correct? We were the first to step away from a craft and then use the Lunar surface to get back to the craft. Correct? That act employed the lunar surface to sustain human life. Correct? A US flag was planted. Correct? Please review the requirements for making a claim by right of discovery. I'm pretty sure we filled in all the boxes.

WellMadeMale wrote:
I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?

1ball wrote:
The landing was to claim the Moon as US property. It's the high ground. Ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? The Moon is still US property and will be until some other country gets there and presses a claim that we've abandoned it. There's a flag there. That's what that flag means.

Quote:
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind - doesn't sound like Armstrong was claiming the Moon as USA sovereign soil. Your logic that the American flag on the moon means that it is solely US property and no other nation can go there or do anything to it without our express consent - is as preposterous a statement as I've read on this board in a long time.


Please review the requirements for making a claim by right of discovery. I'm pretty sure we filled in all the boxes.

Quote:
I suppose you think the same thing goes for Antarctica? We have a base and a flag planted there too.


I have no idea about the legal claims to Antarctica, other than the one made by Chile.

Quote:
I've not read Heinlein's work of fiction, I don't know how his sci-fi novel means jackshit to your statement.


You should read it. It mentions yammerheads. It also mentions bombarding the Earth with big rocks.

Quote:
I've read the 1979 Moon Treaty, which the USA refuses to ratify still - the Moon belongs to all of mankind, not one nation, 1Ball. Where do you get this shit from?


Why do you think the US refuses to ratify it? Wouldn't ratifying it be giving up the high ground we acquired at some significant expense? It's pretty clear that you don't understand how nations legally claim new territories.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?

1ball wrote:
Maybe. Many advancements in many sciences are traceable to NASA expenditures. Many of those would have happened eventually anyway, but timing, as in my aforementioned big rock from Space example, might make all the difference as to whether the society survives.

Quote:
Your big rock from Space example is another work of fiction, similar to Heinlein's - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Fiction. Made up. BS


I disagree. Big rocks from Space happen. Correct? Some of them could be dangerous to all human life. Correct?

WellMadeMale wrote:
If so, I've missed those memos.

1ball wrote:
I have no doubt that you might have missed much.

Quote:
Uh huh...


Apparently so. Much of what I've said seems to be completely new to you. I'm not surprised. It would be completely new to many people who don't remember the Cold War and don't remember the controversy over planting a US flag on the Moon and the talk of building a permanent base there. The truth doesn't change just because you didn't know about it.

WellMadeMale wrote:
*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).

1ball wrote:
Then I would suggest you stop talking about flushing turds. I have no interest in a flame war. I am interested in why you would ignore the strategic benefits of gaining and holding the high ground from capture by a totalitarian enemy. I'm also interested in why you think NASA hasn't advanced many of the technologies we might need in the future. So why don't we keep this discussion out in the open? We'll see who does the better job of keeping it in the realm of a valid discussion for a think tank.

Quote:
Is that what landing rovers on the planet Mars is all about then? Gaining the high ground against totalitarians and terrorists and make believe enemies?


A big rock from Space is a make believe enemy? Well, it's a good thing we pay people to imagine them, because the minute one becomes real, people like you will be yammering about how we should have been ready for it.

Quote:
The USA hasn't had any nationalistic enemies to worry about since the early 1990s. Are our bankers - the Chinese - a country we have to worry about? Who is threatening our way of life now? For fucks sakes 1Ball - be rational.


I've been nothing but rational this whole time. Pretending otherwise just makes you seem like a typical yammerhead. Just because you've been surprised by the depth and breadth of my understanding of the the issues doesn't make me irrational. Our reasons for staying in Space are now somewhat different from our reasons for getting into Space. If China launched a manned mission to the Moon before we got back there, they could claim we abandoned our claim. Do you know how a World Court might rule on that?

The question now is not "Who is threatening our way of life now?" as much as "What is threatening our way of life now?". Excessive Federal entitlement spending is one of those things. Not knowing enough about our solar system might be one of those things.

Quote:
NASA may have advanced a lot of the technologies we 'might need' in the future. But the Sun is not supposed to go nova for at least another 5 billion years. But lets say it isn't supposed to die out for even another 100 million years.

That's a lot of time to get our asses off this planet and out to another M class watery rock, orbiting another habitable zone around another G-class star. In the mean time, we could all take a deep breath and be less Super Powery towards the rest of the nations of this world, and concentrate on technologies which would provide all of us in the here and now and the next 20, 40, 60, 100 years...with a better life.

I think America has enough weapons platforms and surveillance satellites orbiting above our heads, threatening the other nations of the world (and some of its own residents), as it is.


What we could all do is recognize which roles it is safe to allow a central government to have and which roles should be left to regional governments for the sake of promoting competition. Planetary defense, should there become a need for it, can't be trusted to the UN yet. Maybe one day. In the meantime, the US has to protect its interests and I think exploring for threats from Space and possibly getting some of our eggs out of the Earth basket is reasonable. Much more reasonable than having the Federal government do what state governments should do.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2012 7:29:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Contributions to our lives courtesy of NASA:

1) weather satellites that can give us days of warning to before weather destroys a coastline.
Millions of lives.

2) surveillance satellites that have saved thousands of lives on the battle field.

3) technology that gave us the GPS not just for our cars but to find lost ships at sea.

4) improvements in the vaunted "solar cell" technology that we are all suppose to embrace... At least when the sun is out.

5) bio growth technology that proved food can be grown in "0-G" faster and larger than down here on earth, kinda usefull since everyone wants us to stoP the space program and feed the world.


Theres 5 benefits from NASA. Now can I get five benefits humanity receives from welfare...just like mine; no abstracts, no hypotheticals, no intangeables. 5 benefits the world has gained from welfare programs.

Btw: we'll made male, we'll start the search for a fat lady that can accommodate your mouth now.

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
nazhinaz
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 4:35:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Umm...what?



I personally help the less fortunate as much as I can and to the best of my ability (I don't like doing anything half-assed). But that's because of MY moral obligations and standards. It's not fair for me to point my fingers at others and suggest that they assume the same mind as me. Everyone lives according to their own morals and standards and the only outside influence is the laws that are sanctioned to every single one of us. You want to be a hero and save everyone? Great. Kudos to you. That's quite noble of you. But it's completely unfair and absolutely ridiculous for you to want everyone to think and feel as you do. You shouldn't go around dumping the burden you CHOOSE to carry on everyone else.

Thats a welcome statement.
If you or anyone does it, its because he is HUMAN and does feel HUMANLY.
I too want to feel human like you and wish that all humans do feel as humanly as you do.
If you think its good to help other human beings who are less fortunate, why not urge others to adopt the same course as you have addopted?
Surely its a good course of action as you follow it; so let others also follow suit.
Thats what I wanted nothing more nothing less.
And as for your and mine taxes, its what the debate is. Should we spend on the NASA futuristic programs or not.
Please follow the threads.
I discussed that only, keep spending on the development of NASA future explorations and keep helping less fortunate throughout the World.
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:45:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 1,167
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Maybe I'm wrong here but I believe recent studies have shown that mutual cooperation can be traced genealogically and even to the fabric of the universe itself. As John Donne said "no man is an island."
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 7:36:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Jack_42 wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong here but I believe recent studies have shown that mutual cooperation can be traced genealogically and even to the fabric of the universe itself. As John Donne said "no man is an island."


If by mutual cooperation you mean form a bigger gang to oppress minorities and individuals, yes that has genetic advantages and can be seen in most lower primates. It drives individuals and smaller groups away where they either become better survivors or perish. That has been repeated throughout human history. Societal evolution has been toward valuing and embracing individuality, and protecting minorities and individuals from predatory and parasitical majorities, but the old ways die hard.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dani
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:18:43 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,187
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
nazhinaz wrote:

Thats a welcome statement.
If you or anyone does it, its because he is HUMAN and does feel HUMANLY.
I too want to feel human like you and wish that all humans do feel as humanly as you do.
If you think its good to help other human beings who are less fortunate, why not urge others to adopt the same course as you have addopted?
Surely its a good course of action as you follow it; so let others also follow suit.
Thats what I wanted nothing more nothing less.
And as for your and mine taxes, its what the debate is. Should we spend on the NASA futuristic programs or not.
Please follow the threads.
I discussed that only, keep spending on the development of NASA future explorations and keep helping less fortunate throughout the World.


So basically you're dropping a subject that YOU brought up because you don't like being disagreed with, right? As I've said before...it's not technically my responsibility to make sure everyone hugs a tree and adopts a puppy and sends a nickel a day to a kid in Africa. I'm not going to sit on my high horse and say everyone should be more like me. That's rather pretentious. I'm not a model of a perfect human being, and I don't delude myself into thinking I am. I do what feels right for me at any given moment. And that's the only thing I would ever want to urge another to do...as long as it doesn't violate any laws. But I don't do it for a pat on the back from society. It's not something I do for another's approval. I do it because it's something that pleases ME.


And yes, I do believe overall that any money that goes into supporting NASA is money well spent. As someone above pointed out, my tax money that goes to NASA has accomplished far more than the tax money that goes to someone waiting around for government handouts.

And you urge ME to follow the threads...I suggest you do the same. The only reason why we've deviated to this subject is because YOU brought it up. Only now you back out because you're out of valid points. dontknow



JessicaX
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:49:57 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 6/6/2011
Posts: 889
Location: Minneapolis, United States
It is a false assumption to think that money not spent on NASA will go to help the poor, fight wars, or anything else. The only thing I remember from high school economics is the term "opportunity costs" and that certainly applies here.

The money we've spent on NASA has not been spent so we could watch astronauts play on the moon or look at pictures of Curiosity roving in a crater. Those things allow us to build new technologies and discover better ways to live.

Throw away your cell phone, stop using velcro, rip out your insulin pump and pace maker, and get off the computer right now if you don't see the benefits of NASA research!

GO NASA!!








Guest
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:22:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,190
Yay NASA, yay exploration, yay welfare. Boo, self indulgence.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 4:28:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Yay NASA, yay exploration, boo coerced charity. Boo, self-supported ignorance. binky

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dani
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:46:23 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 7,187
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
1ball wrote:
Yay NASA, yay exploration, boo coerced charity. Boo, self-supported ignorance. binky


Lapplause laughing6





nazhinaz
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:32:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 295
Location: Longview, United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


So basically you're dropping a subject that YOU brought up because you don't like being disagreed with, right? As I've said before...it's not technically my responsibility to make sure everyone hugs a tree and adopts a puppy and sends a nickel a day to a kid in Africa. I'm not going to sit on my high horse and say everyone should be more like me. That's rather pretentious. I'm not a model of a perfect human being, and I don't delude myself into thinking I am. I do what feels right for me at any given moment. And that's the only thing I would ever want to urge another to do...as long as it doesn't violate any laws. But I don't do it for a pat on the back from society. It's not something I do for another's approval. I do it because it's something that pleases ME.


And yes, I do believe overall that any money that goes into supporting NASA is money well spent. As someone above pointed out, my tax money that goes to NASA has accomplished far more than the tax money that goes to someone waiting around for government handouts.

And you urge ME to follow the threads...I suggest you do the same. The only reason why we've deviated to this subject is because YOU brought it up. Only now you back out because you're out of valid points. dontknow


I did not back out.
I still hold that the more fortunate and wealthy nations must contribute to develop less fortunate people and nations.
Even in self interest; to create and develop a market for our products, we need to develop less developed to be able to buy our products.
That is besides the humanistic values, a self interest based decision.
And if we can start by sending a nickle to a kid in Africa today; maybe soon you will urge your government to do much more for all the poor kids in Africa and elsewhere.
One has to take a start to feel for others; soon one will feel compelled to urge the government to help the less fortunate nations too.
A begining in the right direction is half achievement.
Jack_42
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:36:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 1,167
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
1ball wrote:


If by mutual cooperation you mean form a bigger gang to oppress minorities and individuals, yes that has genetic advantages and can be seen in most lower primates. It drives individuals and smaller groups away where they either become better survivors or perish. That has been repeated throughout human history. Societal evolution has been toward valuing and embracing individuality, and protecting minorities and individuals from predatory and parasitical majorities, but the old ways die hard.



[Oh of course I meant oppression getting my fascist armband on now.]
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.