Obama Ends NASA Moon Mission

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Wendigo

However, I have seen no indication at all that you understand what I've been arguing - that you're placing a greater amount of subjective importance on later developments using established technology than on the early efforts to make that technology possible.

It is a view that I may hold and may have used specific examples to buttress my more general argument, that the "later developments" are also innovative in nature, but not one that I intend that believe, nor intend to prove, is true in general.

Wendigo

Implying, for example, that NASA's budget was unnecessarily large (a subjective opinion which I would consider revisionist)

I disagree. At most I implied that it was ample. That struggling under budget constraints was very far removed from their top priority. They had a veritable army working for and with them, and I'm sure nobody had to worry about late paychecks or paying the rent.

Wendigo

when making that first reply to Redem, in the process of suggesting that mass production can lead to a streamlined production model (which is just another tautology).

No, I suggested that economization requires innovation. Mass production is but one specific example of a method used for economization and no it is not a tautology that it leads to streamlined production. History is littered with failed attempts to implement streamlined production through mass production.

Wendigo

Quote:

Wendigo

People might be less likely to malign the memory of those distinguished efforts if they were to keep that in mind from time to time.

You're going to have to elaborate how this "maligns their memory".

Let's have a look at what Wendigo zoomed in on while reading the off-the-cuff remark in question.

Quote:

the previous champion (NASA) never had to worry about costs, except staying within a reasonable distance of their multi-billion dollar budget

*lights cigar, pours snifter of brandy*

I say, chaps, let's finally have a go at that moon thing, what? That Verne fellow made it look frightfully easy, all we need is a strapping large cannon and we're off.

An interesting interpretation. Also, a completely false interpretation. Nor does the "maligning their memory" logically follow as you have demonstrated.

For as often as you complain about other's putting words in your mouth, you do quite a lot of it yourself.

Wendigo

Quote:

They had to overcome technical challenges and time constraints, but they certainly didn't have to worry about money. They had the backing of the US government determined to win the Space Race.

This is the first time I've seen you acknowledge the bold during the course of this argument.

And yes, if Gagarin hadn't successfully orbited the earth, the history of NASA would appear starkly different. I suspect that NASA's budget would have stagnated at less than one percent of the federal budget, as it did initially and as it returned to shortly after we successfully landed men on the moon.

So you're saying that when they were given massive project that required a gargantuan budget, their budget was increased manyfold to allow them to do it?

Yeah, clearly they were working on shoestrings, there.

Wendigo

Quote:

Wendigo

Such as when discussing the amazing powers of the free market and its invisible hands.

By Jupiter, I hate that metaphor. It's just supposed to mean "unintended consequences" (of consensual transactions between two parties for mutual benefit).

No, it's supposed to be what pulls a businessman's money into his home community again instead of that money being invested abroad where he can no longer keep a close eye on it. (And where the people around him would see no benefit from his acquiring profit personally.) It's an eighteenth century notion about world commerce which has been thoroughly exploded since globalization and the dawn of the Information Age.

Untrue. Let's examine the context in two parts.

Adam Smith

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand ...

You are referring to what is clearly only intended to be one example of "an invisible hand". It is not surprising that a single example has been "thoroughly exploded". Indeed many specific principles of Smith, have been discarded or improved upon as our understanding of economics has grown since it's initial conception (Gee, that sounds familiar for some reason.).

Anyway,

Adam Smith

... led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Promoting an end that not intended? Wow, that sounds a lot like a metaphor for unintended consequences.

Adam Smith

Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

And he goes on to explain that these consequences can be bad or good. He expounds more upon how this can be useful elsewhere in the book.

Wendigo

The more modern interpretation (re: Spontaneous Order) is just a load of insipid bullshit.

Projecting it onto Smith's hand, maybe. The theory itself? Not at all, unless you have disproved the idea of evolution in general.

Wendigo

Quote:

Are you mistaken on the definition of innovation?

The introduction of something new? No, I wouldn't say that I am.

Huh, because it seems like you are admitting that later innovations did happen, but denying they have done anything new.

Wendigo

Quote:

Wendigo

But in the process, you tried to make it appear as though NASA was in some way loosening its belt or dragging its feet when it was treading boldly into almost completely new territory under the custody of multiple penny-pinching administrations.

No. This is not what I did at all. Any engineer would have to have a hell of a lot of chutzpah to do so.

That was sure what it looked like, man. And what it still looks like, frankly.

Let me assure you, I am not.

Wendigo

Quote:

However, they have had tremendous support in the past, up to 5.5% of the entire federal budget in 1966, which was more than the government was spending on the army that year. You know, during Vietnam. Are you seriously going to call that "penny-pinching"?

Now that's just disingenuous - at this point the "American Phase" has just started heating up, and won't reach its real peak until a couple years later. The real measuring stick, and real policy priority, at the time was Johnson's "Great Society." The war was still supposed to end any time thanks to shock and awe tactics.

It's not at all disingenuous. Massive funding was needed to fund a venture to the moon, and massive funding was given.

Wendigo

Quote:

Wendigo

Since it is an acknowledged fact since at least the Iron Age that mass production is the best model for reducing the cost (at the cost of quality)

I disagree on the tradeoff to quality, and would like you to elucidate on the "mass production" model you are talking about.

In this particular instance?

Bronze is a superior material for armor and weapons than iron is. However, it's an alloy - it requires more time and manpower to get the right materials in the right proportions. The reason that iron weapons began to predominate relative to bronze is that you could arm more men with iron more quickly, and numbers were what mattered. (Which is a paradigm that was to hold for over a thousand years still.)

Oh, then this doesn't support your point at all. Both Bronze and Iron were mass produced, and the reduction in quality for Iron was only accepted due to scarcity issues with Bronze. In this instance, the relative cost has no correlation with mass production.

Wendigo

The same thing is true of, say, factory-produced wooden furniture over work laboriously hand-carved by a carpenter. The carpenter (or the practitioner of most any other cottage industry) produces a very effective product, but it takes him a long time to produce, and it therefore costs a lot for the end user. If I want a really comfortable rocking chair that will last me a long time, I want a carpenter to produce it, and I pay a premium. If I want a really cheap rocking chair, or if for some reason I need several pieces of furniture at once, I go to the factory and its more efficient (at turning out chairs quickly) assembly line. And some people prefer the one, which is why there are still carpenters, while some prefer the other, which is why there is Ikea.

Which is a comparison of two different products for two different uses. Ask that carpenter to make the Ikea chair, and it will be no better (and very possibly worse) than the mass produced version by Ikea, whose design and production were created with consistency in mind.

Wendigo

When I say that there's a drop in quality necessitated by mass production, by the way, I don't mean that there is something wrong with mass production as a result. It's the basis of the entire Industrial Revolution; it makes formerly scarce items available much more broadly and cheaply. And that's good. In fact, it's the very phenomenon you're praising at work. However, it is important to recognize both the positive and negative aspects, and it seems like you're only interested in the positive.

I would, but I don't believe lower quality is an aspect of mass production. Lack of customization is, which you can certainly get from hand crafted products. However, I think you are simply feeling nostalgia for hand crafted production, because "they don't make them like they used to".

Wendigo

Quote:

Substantial innovation we've had since then, yes? People who work on ENIAC very smart and innovative, yes? Intel engineers since then also very smart and innovative, yes?

If you answered yes to all three of these questions, I'm lost as to the exact nature of our argument.

The answer is yes to all three questions, and I noticed.

Alright. I'm still lost.

[Amongst_many]

agrab0ekim

Amongst_many

agrab0ekim

Their was not unbridled support. I was against the invasion then (though for it now), as were most people I knew. We all knew that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected.

How is it that you changed your mind on the support of the war?

I knew they were not linked and did not support going in there. Now that we are, we need to stabilize it before we leave

"We need to stabilize it before we leave" isn't a very good reason considering it's destabilized because of the us and after 7 years it's pretty much a mess, with that justification you guys could be there destabilizing the region till the end of times till you stabilize it.

[agrab0ekim]

Amongst_many

agrab0ekim

Amongst_many

agrab0ekim

Their was not unbridled support. I was against the invasion then (though for it now), as were most people I knew. We all knew that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected.

How is it that you changed your mind on the support of the war?

I knew they were not linked and did not support going in there. Now that we are, we need to stabilize it before we leave

"We need to stabilize it before we leave" isn't a very good reason considering it's destabilized because of the us and after 7 years it's pretty much a mess, with that justification you guys could be there destabilizing the region till the end of times till you stabilize it.

If we leave it will be more ******** up than it is now. A power vacuum is not a good thing

[Wendigo]

Apocryphal Libertarian

Yeah, clearly they were working on shoestrings, there.

Never said they were; just that if they'd been given the shoestrings, we'd still be waiting for the results, rather than discussing how else they might be achieved in the best of all possible worlds.

Quote:

Promoting an end that not intended? Wow, that sounds a lot like a metaphor for unintended consequences.

'Paraphrase' would be the word you're looking for there.

Of course, to those of us who are not adherents of this bizarre cult, "unintended consequences" lacks the positive connotations with which it is invested when it means pursuing only your own benefit and thereby, automagically, causing good things to happen for the people around you. As in this case, purchasing corn, salt provisions, or live cattle from cheaper outside sources without paying duties on them, and then selling them at a profit in the home market, which allows the accumulation of capital in the hands of the importer in question, which will then be invested again in something or other somewhere. The Burj Dubai, maybe.

Or bringing goods you would otherwise be trading between Konigsberg and Lisbon nearer to your home in Amsterdam to sell there, 'for the sake of having some of your capital always under your own view and command.' And thereby bringing capital, otherwise scarce trade goods and jobs to Amsterdam, of course.

Quote:

Wendigo

The more modern interpretation (re: Spontaneous Order) is just a load of insipid bullshit.

Projecting it onto Smith's hand, maybe. The theory itself? Not at all, unless you have disproved the idea of evolution in general.

Eh? The idea of evolution in general is that things change over time. The idea that this actually involves improvement is taken for granted far more than it should be. For example, the gene for the sickle cell trait is selected for in areas with a high incidence of malaria. That's good; the altered blood cells are a less receptive environment for malaria. Unfortunately, when both one's parents have the sickle cell trait, one contracts a deadly congenital disease from one's own genome. And that's bad.

Quote:

It's not at all disingenuous. Massive funding was needed to fund a venture to the moon, and massive funding was given.

Not that part, the part about "More than the army - during Vietnam!1!!"

Quote:

Oh, then this doesn't support your point at all. Both Bronze and Iron were mass produced, and the reduction in quality for Iron was only accepted due to scarcity issues with Bronze. In this instance, the relative cost has no correlation with mass production.

Well, no, not really. In fact, neither of them was actually mass produced - although items of both metals were produced in large quantities, they were still being produced by hand by specialized craftsmen.

The reason the analogy works is that bronze is a stronger and more durable metal, and therefore more desirable in and of itself than iron, but iron (although more brittle) can be produced more quickly and in larger quantity. When and where quality is more highly valued, great numbers or fast production are not strictly necessary, or the underlying materials or smithies are in greater supply, one would rather carry bronze armaments than iron. However, it greatly simplifies things like, say, fitting out an army before a campaign to go with what gets the boots on the ground the fastest, even if it's not, strictly speaking, the best to be had.

Of course, that point was made moot once steel became available, because in many ways it blows both bronze and iron right out of the water. (And conveniently, if you've been relying on iron, it makes the transition to steel very easy.)

Quote:

Which is a comparison of two different products for two different uses. Ask that carpenter to make the Ikea chair, and it will be no better (and very possibly worse) than the mass produced version by Ikea, whose design and production were created with consistency in mind.

I disagree; a chair is for sitting in. The two methods only approach the problem of creating something to sit in by different means; the carpenter wants something both sturdy and aesthetically pleasing, while Ikea's factory floor wants something that can be produced and shipped at low cost and with the modular parts produced last year being equivalent functionally to the ones produced yesterday. By and large, of course, both chairs can be sat upon, and if you pick the right Ikea chair it could last a good long while. Though frankly, I find that their materials are generally inferior, and their parts sometimes don't fit together as well or last quite so long as one might prefer. I think that in general their cast-in-one-piece plastic items are far superior to their some-assembly-required pasteboard items, for example, the latter having a lamentable tendency toward holes drilled with less than mechanical precision. And I would steer clear of anything with moving parts, such as hinges, or welds of any kind.

Of course, you do get what you pay for, and Ikea's staked out the budget-conscious market segment, so one can't complain overly much.

[Brothern]

Hilarious. mrgreen

[Mokie7]

Every time I think I've seen the worst political cartoon ever... boom, there's Brothern with a new one.

[agrab0ekim]

Brothern

Hilarious. mrgreen

rofl rofl

[Steven Hawkings]

Wendigo

Still waiting for single-stage-to-orbit to get excited.

For what payload? What fuel?

[Wendigo]

Well, the "VentureStar" was supposed to have a comparable payload to the Space Shuttle. (Give or take a few thousand kilos.) The fuel doesn't make a big difference to me, but cutting loose from this thing seems to me like it should be a major step forward.

Actually, my big long-term goal for our space program right now would be the establishment of a permanent moon installation, but the plan they canceled was more like a regularly used moon camp site.

[Lord Cameron]

Wendigo

Well, the "VentureStar" was supposed to have a comparable payload to the Space Shuttle. (Give or take a few thousand kilos.) The fuel doesn't make a big difference to me, but cutting loose from this thing seems to me like it should be a major step forward.

Actually, my big long-term goal for our space program right now would be the establishment of a permanent moon installation, but the plan they canceled was more like a regularly used moon camp site.

guess water on the moon was a hoax

[jamal911]

He and Bush and Clinton and Bush Sr. all promised more "moon money" and backed out. Politicians know that the american people like the idea of traveling in space but at the same time these politicians don't actually want to sink the money down that particular hole.

Its such a pity too, considering that money actually gets spent on capital goods in the states.

[agrab0ekim]

cypherdtraitor

He and Bush and Clinton and Bush Sr. all promised more "moon money" and backed out. Politicians know that the american people like the idea of traveling in space but at the same time these politicians don't actually want to sink the money down that particular hole.

Its such a pity too, considering that money actually gets spent on capital goods in the states.

A lot of Americans did not support this trip, for some unknown reason

[Wendigo]

agrab0ekim

A lot of Americans did not support this trip, for some unknown reason

It was supposed to be a stupid trip, that's why. Pitching big inflatable tents on the moon. In preparation, of course, for planting a flag on Mars and then leaving.

[Ammo Amy]

I followed this little back and forth for awhile, and I am kinda torn. I have always been a supporter of NASA & space exploration and will always be. That is the hopeful future of humans, after all. but let me relate some things I have personally experienced...

I was too young to remember Sputnik 1, but the fact that those "Damned Russkies" beat the US into putting something in orbit reverberated for several years.

I remember hearing the radio report when Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit. The US was getting tired of being second and was determined to end that status. I remember President Kennedy making his vow to land on the moon before the decade was out. They went all out and I remember hearing about Alan Shepard and his 15 minute flight. It happened shortly before my birthday. I lived in Colorado Springs at the time and my Dad was stationed at Ent AFB.

I remember Gus Grissom's harrowing recovery when his capsule blew the hatch and sank. Then there was John Glenn. It was all over the news as he was the first American to actually orbit the earth as they had swapped out the little Redstone rocket for the Atlas. Afterward, the space flights got less reported and less interesting to the public. There were 3.

Then came Gemini. there was a minor flap as Gus Grissom wanted to nickname his capsule the "Molly Brown". It was decided that none of them would be named. Gemini III was a lot like the Mercury missions. except with 2 people, but Gemini IV... I was allowed to watch that on TV. I remember seeing Ed White "walking" out there in space.

It was some time later that my Dad had taken my brother and me out to the AF Academy one weekend, and I actually got a chance to meet him by accident. he was in an exchange shoppette, reading a comic book. My father asked, "Do you know who that is?" And neither of us did. "That's Edward White, the astronaut!" I didn't believe it. He looked far too short and was lacking the suit. But we got his autograph.

After that flight, people again started getting complacent and other things started grabbing our attention, like the Communist threat in Southeast Asia.

Apollo got off to a bad start. I cried when I heard that Ed White died in the capsule fire. There was a lot of serious talk about whether it was worth the risks to go to the moon. These were the first American casualties in the space race. It wasn't until Apollo 7 that we were ready to fly people again. The thought of beating Russia to the moon battled the headlines of Vietnam. Apollo 8 - 10 had some great pictures, but didn't generate the excitement of the first successful mission.

We were all glued to the TV to watch Apollo 11. All kinds of questions swirled. The entire nation was glued to the TV, and Apollo 11 was the only thing on all three channels, nit that anyone wanted to see anything else. The next day, the headlines in the Newspaper were printed up in "Second Coming" type: "WE LAND ON MOON". It was such excitement.

Apollo 12 was almost as exciting, but the fact we'd done it before, well... I always tried to tune into whatever I could get. Apollo 13 had us all on the edge of our seats. The entire nation was riveted. After the successful recovery, people asked if it was worth it again. After all, we'd been there and beaten the Communists. Was it worth the cost and risk?

Alan Shepard decided to take a swing at a golf ball during his Apollo 14 mission. While may people thought this was amusing, there were certain factions that were ticked off. "We spend billions of dollars for this?" After all, there was a raging war and civil unrest going on. Some Congressmen complained about the cost and waste. Public interest waned. Moon rocks just weren't going to do it. Apollo came to the end with Apollo 17.

On the heels of Apollo, was Skylab. It started out wonky with the problems in the solar panels off the bat. NASA was trying to make use of adapted parts from the launch vehicles. But it was useful for over a year and managed to stay in orbit (abandoned) for about 6 years until mostly burned up in reentry. More complaints about the hazards of space junk and money waste. I visited the NASA Air and Space museum near Langley, Virgina a couple of times. I saw the Apollo 12 capsule, some moon rocks, space suits, lunar mockups, and outside they had several of the boosters on display (replica and recovered).

In 1975, just after I joined the service, there was the Apollo-Soyuz linkup. It was the last hurrah for the US for several years. The Soviets continued doing space missions.

Then there was the Space Shuttle. It was touted as more economical as the shuttle was reusable. I remember the campaign to have the very first Shuttle named "Enterprise". It never flew, but was only used in the aircraft tests. What a disappointment.

The first one to fly into space was Columbia. I was excited and I went out and bought a commemorative, limited edition belt buckle...

After awhile, the missions again became routing for most and people were wondering why so much money was being spent. Again more Congressional budget argument.

I was in Korea in January of 1986. I remember waking up very early from a bad dream, turning on the TV and watching in horror as AFKN had a live news feed that showed the footage of the explosion. Again, I cried. I still have that belt buckle on my shelf of NASA memorabilia.

By the time the US returned to space, I was stationed at an actual AF base on the east coast (first AF base in years). I remember the first return to space being a tense thing, and again all the talk about risk vs benefit and NASA cutting corners on a budget that Congress argued over. The base I was at was near the family of one of the shuttle pilots, Henry Hartfield. To be honest, when giving him a flight briefing, he was a bit gruff and in a hurry, but his wife was very charming. She took down my address and a few days after they left, I got a mission patch and an autographed picture in the mail.

I was back in Korea and watching the coverage of the return of Columbia in February 2003 when the news showed the breakup on return. It was about 5 PM. Again, I cried.

I have grown up following NASA. I am, to be honest, a little disappointed about termination of the moon return. But to be honest, we've done that. We need to find some new and innovative ways to get into space, but it has to be something people don't mind spending a lot of money on. Space exploration isn't cheap, and when people try to cut costs and corners, things happen.

let's face it. Presidents int he past have made some statements about NASA and space exploration, yet when it comes to funding it, the money was lacking. Now some of you are throwing brickbats at Obama for being up front about only giving NASA a 6 billion dollar increase and pulling the plug on retracing Apollo's steps. How partisan of you. If he had decided to dedicate all the funds needed to retrace those steps, you'd throw brickbats at him at wasting all that money.

NASA isn't supposed to be about partisan politics, or nationalism, or any of that. It's supposed to be a human endeavor to reach out beyond this mudball. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we are ready to do that, I think.

But this is just my little bit of history, recollection, and opinion on the subjects. That's all.

[X_Eternal__rest]

Amongst_many

Quote:

NASA's yearly budget is $19 billion.

Defense budget : $534 billion + a good chunk of the discretionary spending + new debt

Americans see it this way,
534bil keeps us as a world power.
19billion is just a couple of guys going to the moon and back, whilst Americans on earth mind you, have no jobs,