Because they won't fight back...

[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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by wolf

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

[bluesdave]

tw: Bluesdave - you clearly are young.

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

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yesman065]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I am not trying to start an argument with you - I'm not as resilient as Bruce! :p

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

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

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

[yesman065]

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

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I think that a small base on the Moon does make some sense, and at the time NASA was pushed to build the ISS there were many people at NASA who argued against the expense, saying that they could build a Moon base for less money, and do more robotic/automated research. Politics *did* override logic, but that does not mean that "man" has not benefited from the tools and materials that NASA has developed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Start here or here or here.

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

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

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Start here or here or here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The other things NASA and JPL do, have a much larger impact on us, but the general population doesn't identify with those programs.

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

[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.