Because they won't fight back...

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

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.

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.

Well bigmouth, here are a few links ...

'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

The goals of the Vision for Space Exploration are to implement a sustained and affordable program, extend human presence across the solar system, develop innovative technologies, knowledge and infrastructures, and promote international and commercial participation. NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) has a major role to play in achieving all of these goals, but in none more so than making it sustainable and affordable.

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:

One area space exploration has always benefited has been the economy. It has obviously affected transportation both in the air and on the ground. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has always gone hand in hand with the United States Air Force helping in the design of key parts in various aircraft.

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.

“The astronauts onboard [the ISS], their work and the instruments used will provide a ‘window on the world,’ enabling scientists to monitor and understand the factors affecting quality of life”

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.

[tw]

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:

NASA Official Questions Agency’s Focus on the Shuttle
Mr. Griffin was appointed to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 2005, a year after President Bush announced his “vision for space exploration,” which calls for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and then moving on to send humans to Mars. Mr. Griffin has from the start been an enthusiastic proponent of that plan.

But it has put him in a delicate situation, as he has shifted NASA financing to the Moon initiative, while moving to complete the space station and shut down the shuttle program by 2010, and cutting back on its science activities. And in doing so, he has occasionally expressed doubts about the wisdom underlying the nation’s decision to build the shuttle and the station.

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.

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

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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.

[yesman065]

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

[yesman065]

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

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.