Ice on the moon a "game-changer"

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Strawman. :p

The word you're looking for is 'analogy'.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw already exploded that myth. And Tang was around before the space program.

I must have missed that bit of tw-ism. Yes, both Tang and transistors were around before the space program took off. It was the pressure of the space program that refined them.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We've seen enough, and without sending people there, can find out more than we need to know about the moon. The only reason to go back is to exploit it, mine it. But there's nothing there we can't get here... cheaper. There's no environment there, we can't duplicate here... cheaper.
This is nothing but a giant, expensive, dangerous, ego stroking, for a few space geeks.

So your next vacation you'll be sending a legobot? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?

I'm not saying the unmanned exploration is useless. But I certainly don't see it as a permanent substitute for on-site exploration.

I think mankind needs a frontier. It would be sad if we gave up on space exploration.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

I must have missed that bit of tw-ism. Yes, both Tang and transistors were around before the space program took off. It was the pressure of the space program that refined them.

Maybe you should work in aerospace before assuming something. What kind of electronics go into space craft? Only stuff that has existed long ago. In satellites, only electronics that would no longer appear in any desktop or laptop is used. The old stuff.

What microprocessor is controls the Martian Rovers? 8086. Technology of the original IBM PC. Used in space are electronics that were long first refined in earth applications.

What did the shuttle use for its five major computers? Core memory. Iron rings. Semiconductors were introduced much later in the latter 1980s - only after semiconductor memories had been better understood by multiple decades of use on earth. Semiconductor memory was pioneered by Intel in the 1960s.

Space program did not advance other technologies by using them. The space program is a consumer of the most reliable and long proven technologies. A useful space program does science. And so we canceled eight earth study satellites for pennies while spending hundred dollar bills to do no science in the ISS. Where is the science? Almost all NASA science is done in the less than 10% budget that does not fly humans.

This point was made previously, repeatedly, and long ago.

One final point. Science with telescopes - like most advanced science today - is best done without humans on site. Astronomers rarely go to the telescope anymore. Best work is accomplished remotely - with the telescope acting as a robot. Just another reason why Hubble - like the Martian Rovers - have been so successful.

This is where space science is conducted:

NASA's Earth Observing System was conceived in the 1980s as a 15-year program that would collect comprehensive data about the planet's oceans, atmosphere and land surface. ...
Landsat, a series of satellites that have provided detailed images of the ground surface for more than 30 years, is in danger of experiencing a gap in service. ...
... a satellite designed to measure rainfall over the entire Earth, the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, has been pushed back to 2012. But the satellite it is designed to replace, the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, can't possibly last that long. That means there will be a period of several years when scientists have no access to the accurate global precipitation measurements that help them improve hurricane forecasts and predict the severity of droughts and flooding. [how politically convenient]
... scientists working on the Hydros mission received a letter canceling their program. They were developing a satellite that would measure soil moisture and differentiate between frozen and unfrozen ground, an increasingly important distinction since melting of the Arctic permafrost has accelerated over the past several decades. The satellite also would have improved drought and flood forecasting.
... Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project he has led for more than seven years, would be canceled. ... The observatory would have provided valuable information about how clouds, snow cover, airborne dust and other phenomena affect the balance between the amount of sunlight Earth absorbs and the amount of heat energy it emits. And because it would have hovered between Earth and the sun at a distance of roughly a million miles, it would have been able to observe the entire sunlit surface of the planet constantly. Such observations could greatly enhance scientists' understanding how much the planet has warmed in recent years and help them predict how much warmer it will get in the future.

The best science now does not deploy humans. Humans do not even go the ground based telescopes. Best science is done by machines and robots.

In deep ocean research, Ballard also came to the same stunning conclusion while maybe a mile under the ocean. He suddenly noticed crew members would rather view outside on cameras rather than use viewing ports. Even deep sea research is better conducted by machines - not by man.

Originally Posted by dar512

I think mankind needs a frontier. It would be sad if we gave up on space exploration.

Which is what happened when we spent so much money putting man in space resulting in no research. The amount of science performed by $80+ billion on ISS could be written on the back of a postage stamp. ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014. Big bucks. Near zero science - because we deployed men - not machines.

[dar512]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/14...ine/index.html

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Just a couple of the many sites documenting the payoff from the space program.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

Just a couple of the many sites documenting the payoff from the space program.

And the myths live on. A few innovation that already existed.

Infrared thermometer
Launched to market in 1991, the device weighs only eight ounces and gives a reading in just two seconds.

Reality. It used the same component sold by Hamamatsu in the 1980s (and maybe earlier). How do I know? I designed a device using the same technology to detect a human body by remotely and passively detecting emissions (temperature) from warmer human skin. Same technology used in proximity switches that detect the human body, turn on lights, and detect motion in burglar alarm systems - in the early 1980s. What better promotes new products and innvoation (using your reasoning)? Crime.

In a Hitachi factory in the mid 1980s (during a fire alarm), we were playing with a device that measured infrared emissions and reported temperature. We (Americans and Japanese - some of whom could not speak English) were playing with it; measuring each other's body temperature from across the room.

Of course, in a million discoveries, we could find one or two had some basis in the space program - or would have happened anyway. Meanwhile, how many hundred discoveries were stifled because we were spending $billions on space programs that did no science? More rediculous are these electronics advances - that you are no longer preaching now that someone who actually did the stuff provided reality. Did you forget how many hundred new ideas could have happened if billions were actually being spent on science?

$8 billion for a Super Collider to actually do science in TX. Instead we killed science to spend $80billion keeping three men in space. Notice the longer list of innovations not existing because so many productive people were wasting $80billion doing no science. After $80billion, we could have a thermometer in 1991 that was doing what we were already doing in semiconductor fabs in the 1980s? You call that an innovation by simply ignoring that it already existed?

What is doing the best (productive) science? What creates far more innovations? The less than 10% of the space program that launches no humans. How many Hubbles could have been launched for the price of one year’s worth of shuttle launches? Many. Too many. The Martian Rovers alone do more science than any mission to the ISS over the last ten years – using only 8086 processors, standard solar cells, orbiting communication satellites, and electric motors - and no humans.

What was Columbia doing when it disintegrated? Columbia remained in service because it was the only space shuttle that could do any science - had no other mission. So we gave science the shittiest space shuttle. Did they forget to mentino that since propaganda rather than science is the purpose?

The best science means no humans, lots of machines, remote sensors, and robots. Same applies to undersea as well as outer space. So many innovations that do not exist because we wasted so much money putting man in space.

Who are the leaders in space launches? French. Russians. Why? Because the biggest spenders wasted so much good money and labor on something that provides so little science and innovation: manned space flight. So mismanaged is space research for a political agenda that we will soon be completely dependent on the Russians (and maybe the French) for access to the ISS. A reality when propaganda rather than reality and science pervert the exploration of space.

"Man to Mars" is a code word for one of the dumbest administrations in American history. An adminstration with so much contempt for science and innovation as to even have science papers rewritten by White House lawyers. Where is the best (almost all) science ongoing? Unmanned probes, sensors, and robots. Things that are productive and not hyped by myths. Things also subverted by that administration that only saw *glory* in "Man to Mars".

How to create so many new products and innovations? Using their reasoning: increase crime. Then lie about the infrared thermometer. Those who actually know better are not their target audience.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by dar512

The word you're looking for is 'analogy'.

No, strawman.

So your next vacation you'll be sending a legobot? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?

So your next vacation you'll be sending some guy you don't know, have only seen on TV, and demands the Presidential suite at the Hilton? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?:p

I think mankind needs a frontier.

There are much more beneficial frontiers, right here on Earth.

It would be sad if we gave up on space exploration.

We whom would not be sad, out number you by an order of magnitude. Space geeks represent a tiny fraction of the world.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So your next vacation you'll be sending some guy you don't know, have only seen on TV, and demands the Presidential suite at the Hilton? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?:p

Sadly, I will not be going into space personally. I'm too old and we waited too long. But I'd like to hope that my children's children could go if they had a mind to.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There are much more beneficial frontiers, right here on Earth.

I don't have any objections to pursuing those as well.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We whom would not be sad, out number you by an order of magnitude. Space geeks represent a tiny fraction of the world.

Really? When did you do the survey?

If this does turn out to be true, then that just makes me sad as well. It means we really have turned into a nation of bean-counters.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by dar512

Really? When did you do the survey?

Sorta;
Hey, did you see the space shot?
Naw, I was watching Sponge Bob... There was a space shot?... Why, they all look the same?
Plus the TV ratings showed a precipitous drop.

If this does turn out to be true, then that just makes me sad as well. It means we really have turned into a nation of bean-counters.

No, it isn't the money, it's not good theater, unless you do an Apollo 13. You can't explore the moon, in a real time two hour show, minus 40 minutes of commercials.

They are only thinking about this to beat the Chinese there.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sorta;
Hey, did you see the space shot?
Naw, I was watching Sponge Bob... There was a space shot?... Why, they all look the same?
Plus the TV ratings showed a precipitous drop.

Now there's a strawman argument. The ratings are dropping, so it's no longer worth doing? Is this what American society has become? If no one's going to watch it on TV, let's just drop it?

I don't for a minute believe the one has anything to do with the other. When's the last time you watched footage from the South Pole station? Should we stop that as well?

Oh look, no one is watching cancer research on TV. Maybe we should put an end to that.