Obama Ends NASA Moon Mission

[gigacannon]

If modern private space travel companies can manufacture spacecraft cheaply thanks to advances in technology that were made by publicly owned space administrations, I say that that was, after all, money well spent. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

If moon money is now going to be spent on missions using the fruits of private enterprise, in the long run, I think that will accelerate the development of an economy in space, which will probably result in exploration of other planets in the solar system much sooner, in the long run. Space exploration won't get anywhere if people don't start making money out of it.

[Lieutenant_Charon]

I read something that said they're opening space to private investment.

That seems like a good thing, to me.

[Wendigo]

That somebody has done what you intended to do in the past doesn't automatically make it easier for you to do it yourself, that much is true.

However, if they've publicized all of the information leading up to their successful launch of a Sputnik, then by all means it becomes easier to launch your own Sputnik. Since you can base your designs and your protocols on what worked for them rather than starting from scratch. You can pick right up with "So you want to build a Sputnik," the helpful white paper on building Sputniks.

In fact, you could probably skip the exploration stages where you burn the occasional dog alive, and jump right to, say, manned space flight.

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Wendigo

That somebody has done what you intended to do in the past doesn't automatically make it easier for you to do it yourself, that much is true.

However, if they've publicized all of the information leading up to their successful launch of a Sputnik, then by all means it becomes easier to launch your own Sputnik. Since you can base your designs and your protocols on what worked for them rather than starting from scratch. You can pick right up with "So you want to build a Sputnik," the helpful white paper on building Sputniks.

In fact, you could probably skip the exploration stages where you burn the occasional dog alive, and jump right to, say, manned space flight.

Which would be great if they were trying to do the exact same thing.

They're not.

They're trying to economize to a point where the supply and demand curves actually intersect, something that has not happened before. Which is why government agencies were necessary for the initial ventures.

[Wendigo]

Apocryphal Libertarian

They're trying to economize to a point where the supply and demand curves actually intersect, something that has not happened before. Which is why government agencies were necessary for the initial ventures.

As is the case for every form of research that requires a large initial investment but may not turn a profit for the foreseeable future. The private sector not only wouldn't but couldn't do the heavy lifting on its own - because when a whole lot of your investors' money disappears without producing dividends, they swiftly tire of your failure to serve the purpose they set for you. Specifically, producing dividends.

Your last sentence there nails it right on the head - pure science demands the involvement of a government, and its power to expend resources and manpower on seemingly insoluble problems hoping for a breakthrough. The private sector is handicapped in the early stages of such an endeavor by its obsessive need to keep the books balanced, since red ink makes one's shareholders panic. Betting on achieving something that nobody's ever seen before is simply a non-starter.

The reason I find all of this talk about comparative costs so comical is that it's fundamentally necessary to compare apples to oranges to even have this conversation. The miraculous efficiency and innovation of the private sector is, in this case, predicated on somebody else doing the grunt work in advance and asking nothing in return. Not to mention about fifty years of technological progress in related fields unknown in the early '60s.

[Baron von Darrin]

Good. NASA has been holding a state enforced near monopoly on aerospace technological development and testing for years. I look forward to the eventual death of NASA

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Wendigo

Apocryphal Libertarian

They're trying to economize to a point where the supply and demand curves actually intersect, something that has not happened before. Which is why government agencies were necessary for the initial ventures.

As is the case for every form of research that requires a large initial investment but may not turn a profit for the foreseeable future.

Which is not true. While Government is certainly one of, if not the biggest benefactor of blue skies research, they are far from the only one.

Wendigo

The private sector not only wouldn't but couldn't do the heavy lifting on its own - because when a whole lot of your investors' money disappears without producing dividends, they swiftly tire of your failure to serve the purpose they set for you. Specifically, producing dividends.

1) The heavy lifting doesn't end when a proof of concept is developed.
2) Again, Government is not the only benefector of blue skies research.

Wendigo

Your last sentence there nails it right on the head - pure science demands the involvement of a government, and its power to expend resources and manpower on seemingly insoluble problems hoping for a breakthrough.

An assumption that rests on the weak premise that without government involvement, space flight would never happen. Which is an unfounded assertion.

And again, Government is not the only benefactor of blue skies research.

Wendigo

The private sector is handicapped in the early stages of such an endeavor by its obsessive need to keep the books balanced, since red ink makes one's shareholders panic. Betting on achieving something that nobody's ever seen before is simply a non-starter.

An unfounded generalization.

Wendigo

The reason I find all of this talk about comparative costs so comical is that it's fundamentally necessary to compare apples to oranges to even have this conversation. The miraculous efficiency and innovation of the private sector is, in this case, predicated on somebody else doing the grunt work in advance and asking nothing in return. Not to mention about fifty years of technological progress in related fields unknown in the early '60s.

Because, of course, all scientists and engineers are in the employ of the government, because they're the only ones who do the "grunt work". Businesses are just exploiting that effort for profit without any innovation at all, amirite?

Seriously, your dismissal of all innovation ("grunt work" ) that happens outside of government efforts is absurd. Yes, the government was pioneer into networking technologies with ARPANET. This does not mean all the "grunt work" needed to establish Google was done by the government.

[Wendigo]

Begging your pardon?

Apocryphal Liberarian

all scientists and engineers are in the employ of the government,

Apocryphal Liberarian

your dismissal of all innovation ("grunt work" ) that happens outside of government efforts

Apocryphal Libertarian

While Government is certainly one of, if not the biggest benefactor of blue skies research, they are far from the only one.

Maybe I missed where I made those particular claims. I confess that I must not be reading the same copy of this conversation you are. Since apparently I did say that only the government engages in anything but agenda-driven research, only the government employs scientists, and only the government is capable of innovation of any kind.

It rather seemed to me at the time that I was saying that private-sector funding for blue skies research (or "pure science" ) is hard to come by and tends to evaporate over time, that programs which may not realize a profit (ever) are the most prone to this difficulty, and that the milestone of actually achieving something meaningful in such a program can easily become unattainable for the preceding two reasons.

Quote:

An assumption that rests on the weak premise that without government involvement, space flight would never happen. Which is an unfounded assertion.

So, how does the history of space research read in your world? When, for example, did the Monsanto Corporation reach the moon?

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Wendigo

Begging your pardon?

Apocryphal Liberarian

all scientists and engineers are in the employ of the government,

Apocryphal Liberarian

your dismissal of all innovation ("grunt work" ) that happens outside of government efforts

Apocryphal Libertarian

While Government is certainly one of, if not the biggest benefactor of blue skies research, they are far from the only one.

Maybe I missed where I made those particular claims. I confess that I must not be reading the same copy of this conversation you are. Since apparently I did say that only the government engages in anything but agenda-driven research, only the government employs scientists, and only the government is capable of innovation of any kind.

Sorry. I didn't mean to engage in such hyperbole. Though I do think it would be fair to say that you (and Redem) are dismissive of Research and Development (innovation) that happens outside of the government sphere.

Wendigo

It rather seemed to me at the time that I was saying that private-sector funding for blue skies research (or "pure sceince" ) is hard to come by and tends to evaporate over time, that programs which may not realize a profit (ever) are the most prone to this difficulty, and that the milestone of actually achieving something meaningful in such a program can easily become unattainable for the preceding two reasons.

I would like to disagree, but I have no supporting evidence in that remark. Though I would note that private sector spending on R&D dwarfs government spending, and many of the larger corporation are known for taking the best and brightest and just letting them loose on whatever they want to create.

Wendigo

Quote:

An assumption that rests on the weak premise that without government involvement, space flight would never happen. Which is an unfounded assertion.

So, how does the history of space research read in your world? When, for example, did the Monsanto Corporation reach the moon?

In an alternate world where government provided no support for space research? I imagine initial ventures would have lagged for a couple of decades. The first space venture also would likely be a publicity stunt by one of the major aerospace corporations to demonstrate their technology. When the value of satellites is discovered we would witness an explosion of low orbit ventures to create a satellite network in the late 1900's. At this point I imagine we would see the creation of a standards agency like ISO (or alternatively a government regulatory agency to prevent gridlock).

Manned spaceflight would only start to gain traction in the early 2000's, and that would initially be for satellite maintenance, possibly an orbital research station. This will be followed by space tourism. Manned missions to the moon would likely be delayed indefinitely until the late 21st or early 22nd century when technology has advanced sufficiently to make it economical.

All in all, I imagine our progress in space would lag by decades. Besides, I never said the government funding such projects was bad, just that it's not the end all, be all of scientific progress while the private corporations weren't innovating at all and just rehashing what NASA already did.

[Redem]

Brothern

/sigh

The only governmental organization that I fully support and wish more funding would get redirected towards gets cut by Obama. fml.

He did give it more funding. 6 billion more.

[agrab0ekim]

Wendigo

A Liberal Media

Wendigo

agrab0ekim

I thought it only banned the launch of nuclear materials into space
it is not a weapons

We wouldn't be following that, then, given that we have these batteries here.

The nuclear bomb thing really never made sense to me. I could get behind Operation Plowshare being applied to the excavation for a space installation, though. Just takes a lot of long-term planning.

allow an example to illustrate the benefits of an Orion drive. The Reference Design NASA made back when Orion Drives were receiving serious funding was estimated to be capable of taking a crew of 200 astronauts from the Earth's Surface, to mars, and back to Earth's surface in around 4 weeks. For comparison, current traditional chemical rocket designs would take 12 months. The same Orion design would be able to visit Saturn's Moons in a 7 month timeframe, whereas chemical propulsion would take almost a decade.

The Orion Drive certainly had some flaws, but it was definitely worth merit and killing the project was a grave mistake.

I would think that the biggest flaw would be the amount of shielding that would be necessary to avoid lethally irradiating the crew with your propulsion system. Extra shielding also means extra mass, which means a more expensive take-off, because that extra mass still has to reach escape velocity.

I'd also wonder what kind of pad it is that they're planning to attach to the rear end of their pressure vessel that will be withstanding repeated hits with a close-proximity nuclear detonation, and just what exactly it's made of.

That is why moon based construction was a strong idea

[agrab0ekim]

wildblackfire

agrab0ekim

wildblackfire

antaine

wildblackfire

he can't reduce the military's budget until America is no longer at war. And he has to make sure they aren't going to make themselves look weak by doing it. it's risky business. I don't know if you noticed but America isn't too popular right now. You have to look at it from a global scale. As much as people want peace with other countries they are only doing so because they are looking in their own countries best interest. It's a dog eat dog world out there. If he shows weakness in Americas current state he's making them a target. he has to reestablish America position in the global entity before he can do that, give them some support from other global entities first. or America will be ripped apart in a frenzy. stare

Is a strong military really only meassured in how much money you can throw at it?
Just a thought.

no, but realistically nobody can tell how strong your military is without going to war with it. people don't want to do that without at least a vague idea of what they're dealing with. Money means better equipment, more people, more training, more funding towards research for new weaponry. ect. It's the name of the game. you never let someone you're playing against see you're hand. only the raw you're putting into it. So they can't know exactly what they are getting into. It's a great deterrence for war. does it work? well has America been attacked? stare

did you just elephant gun fallacy yourself?

explain please. stare

The fallacy is as follows:
I have an elephant gun in my room
My room has never had an elephant in it
ergo the gun works

that, of course, is a logical fallacy as it assumes that an elephant was guaranteed to show up without said gun, and that the gun itself kept them away
see your statement and apply it here

[Wendigo]

Apocryphal Libertarian

Sorry. I didn't mean to engage in such hyperbole. Though I do think it would be fair to say that you (and Redem) are dismissive of Research and Development (innovation) that happens outside of the government sphere.

I am indeed scornfully dismissive of particular attitudes which I have here encountered. Though I differ in exactly what I perceive those attitudes to be.

This here quote is pretty representative of the attitude I mean:

Quote:

Seriously, how much money do you think Intel/AMD/Nvidia poured into Research and Development over the years to bring you the computer on your desk? Do you think it was more or less than the government spent building the first (super)computer with those specs decades ago?

Among my people, the early mainframes would be considered part and parcel of the research and development that went into creating the computer on your desk. The computer was not created during Intel's last development cycle - and if it were, it would be an air-cooled vacuum-tube and card-file monstrosity that fills a whole room and has the computing power of a pocket calculator. Half the time when you were powering up or shutting down, bits of your hardware would burn out and need to be replaced. Moths would get into your hardware and electrocute themselves.

And all this, for the bargain price of six million dollars.

The reason I say this is that, of course, before the early, halting first steps into a new industry, that is to say, before the innovation you've been talking about starts to happen, nobody knows what the ******** they're doing. Intel didn't fall off the cabbage truck knowing how to build a 45 nanometer integrated circuit. Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't start off with the 747. Wernher von Braun didn't start with the Saturn V - and man, he was a rocket scientist. He worked in rocket science. Those guys are bright, I hear. These things began as impossible goals, with a potentially unlimited amount of money and manpower required to realize them. Now they are mundane, mass-produced items - precisely because so much time and money was spent early on when they couldn't be done.

There is an iceberg lurking that somebody doesn't want to see, all right, but it's the iceberg of the hard work and investment integral to the development of a completely new technology. It is a costly, time-consuming process, full of false starts and dead ends. (And in the space program, some of those dead ends were literal; there are some very volatile compounds and hazardous conditions involved.) After countless man-hours, the investment of millions or billions of dollars, and the frustrated efforts of the best experts available, you might be lucky enough to stumble down the right blind alleys. There is no shortcut, public or private, past that obstacle - no matter how efficient or innovative your research team may be. Which is why I find certain statements:

Quote:

Lowering costs for established method is one of, if not the most important aspect of innovation, yet one that doesn't readily show itself, especially when the previous champion (NASA) never had to worry about costs, except staying within a reasonable distance of their multi-billion dollar budget.

So goddamn naive. Because HOW DO YOU GET AN ESTABLISHED METHOD WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING A METHOD?

Let me place a larger amount of emphasis on this.

You are comparing cause with effect, and declaring later developments in a given technological pedigree to be superior to earlier ones because they were made quicker and more cheaply. WOW HOW DID THAT HAPPEN

[hahahahot shot]

Obama is trying to rob florida of its tourism industry and killing millions of jobs around the country and around the world. simply put, Obama is a dictator. He knows that the unemployment rate is already at 10%+. This will make the rate sky rocket (no pun intended)!!!!!!
All the scientific knowledge gained during the early nasa missions is enormous! why would you cut the constellation program when it will do the same thing. going to the moon! and new knowledge will be gained when we go to mars!!!!

[Apocryphal Libertarian]

Wendigo

Apocryphal Libertarian

Sorry. I didn't mean to engage in such hyperbole. Though I do think it would be fair to say that you (and Redem) are dismissive of Research and Development (innovation) that happens outside of the government sphere.

I am indeed scornfully dismissive of particular attitudes which I have here encountered.

Clearly. Though you should reasonably expect such an attitude to be reciprocated.

Wendigo

Though I differ in exactly what I perceive those attitudes to be.

This here quote is pretty representative of the attitude I mean:

Quote:

Seriously, how much money do you think Intel/AMD/Nvidia poured into Research and Development over the years to bring you the computer on your desk? Do you think it was more or less than the government spent building the first (super)computer with those specs decades ago?

Among my people, the early mainframes would be considered part and parcel of the research and development that went into creating the computer on your desk.

Agreed and would note that I have never contested this.

Wendigo

The computer was not created during Intel's last development cycle - and if it were, it would be an air-cooled vacuum-tube and card-file monstrosity that fills a whole room and has the computing power of a pocket calculator. Half the time when you were powering up or shutting down, bits of your hardware would burn out and need to be replaced. Moths would get into your hardware and electrocute themselves.

And all this, for the bargain price of six million dollars.

Yes. It's almost as if a substantial amount of innovation happened after the development of the initial mainframe.

Shocking, I know.

Wendigo

The reason I say this is that, of course, before the early, halting first steps into a new industry, that is to say, before the innovation you've been talking about starts to happen, nobody knows what the ******** they're doing.

Agreed and I would again note that I have never contested this.

Wendigo

Intel didn't fall off the cabbage truck knowing how to build a 45 nanometer integrated circuit. Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't start off with the 747. Wernher von Braun didn't start with the Saturn V - and man, he was a rocket scientist. He worked in rocket science. Those guys are bright, I hear. These things began as impossible goals, with a potentially unlimited amount of money and manpower required to realize them.

Agreed and I would again note that I have never contested this.

Wendigo

Now they are mundane, mass-produced items - precisely because so much time and money was spent early on when they couldn't be done.

No. Not because.

Saying that ongoing research must have a beginning is tautological. It is true that government efforts may have been utilized to jump start the research and maybe even that without government efforts there would not have been a beginning. Having a beginning is necessary to stand where we do now, but it is not sufficient to justify our current position.

Again, it is necessary, but not sufficient. The use of because is not justified based solely on that argument. (Much) Additional work was needed to proceed from those initial steps to the mundane, mass produced items.

Wendigo

There is an iceberg lurking that somebody doesn't want to see, all right,

Oh, you got that right.

Wendigo

but it's the iceberg of the hard work and investment integral to the development of a completely new technology.

Alright, let's make a wild assumption that current mundane, mass-produced product is, and relies on, technology that is distinct from what was initially developed. From there, wouldn't it be logical to assume that "hard work and investment" were integral to the development of the current products?

Wendigo

It is a costly, time-consuming process, full of false starts and dead ends. (And in the space program, some of those dead ends were literal; there are some very volatile compounds and hazardous conditions involved.) After countless man-hours, the investment of millions or billions of dollars, and the frustrated efforts of the best experts available, you might be lucky enough to stumble down the right blind alleys. There is no shortcut, public or private, past that obstacle - no matter how efficient or innovative your research team may be.

True. These also stand for development of technology beyond the initial conceptions.

Wendigo

Which is why I find certain statements:

Quote:

Lowering costs for established method is one of, if not the most important aspect of innovation, yet one that doesn't readily show itself, especially when the previous champion (NASA) never had to worry about costs, except staying within a reasonable distance of their multi-billion dollar budget.

So goddamn naive. Because HOW DO YOU GET AN ESTABLISHED METHOD WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING A METHOD?

In your words: Maybe I missed where I made those particular claims. I confess that I must not be reading the same copy of this conversation you are. Since apparently I did say that you can get an established method without first establishing a method.

....and don't you find it a tad hypocritical to put words in my mouth after complaining that I was doing the same to you (and apologized for it)?

Wendigo

Let me place a larger amount of emphasis on this.

And I will ask you to pay close attention to my replies because you have clearly mistaken my position, and I will attempt to elucidate.

You are comparing cause with effect,No. I am stating that additional innovation beyond what was required to achieve the initial conception to achieve our current status.

Wendigo

and declaring later developments in a given technological pedigree to be superior

No, I did not. [ulr=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/politics/obama-ends-nasa-moon-mission/t.58339577_79/#79]I was responding to redem's argument that they were simply retracing NASA's steps from decades prior and there was (effectively) no innovation since then. I countered that economization requires innovation, often it requires a hell of a lot of innovation. To support the latter point, I offered the computer example to support argument by demonstrating that innovation to achieve our current status from the initial point often dwarfs the initial investment (in this case made by government investment in mainframes).

At no point did I say that one was superior. I did say that economization requires innovation.

Wendigo

to earlier ones because they were made quicker and more cheaply.

I'm sorry, but you picked up the wrong emphasis. My emphasis was on the innovation required to be able to manufacture them quicker and cheaper.

Your straw man of my proposition is simply ludicrous, as it would be analogous to claiming I was more innovative than Charles Babbage because I could put a computer together in a couple of hours for a fraction of my weekly pay. My actual stance would be closer to saying that we (collectively as a species) have had to innovate a hell of a lot to get from Babbage's mechanical difference engine to what I play Modern Warfare 2 on.

Wendigo

WOW HOW DID THAT HAPPEN

Quite simply, it didn't.