Starship Asterisk*

by **iamlucky13** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:21 am

fatcitymax wrote:
... so are you really sure that you want to spend money on BOTH?
I'm sure I don't want to spend money on a sclerotic bureaucracy no longer capable of "moon-shot" projects, whereas the biotech industry is capable of such advances in science and technology. The only similarity between NASA of today and NASA of 40 years ago is the meatball.

NASA bashing by fatcitymax ...
Poor irrelevant NASA and its apologists. Take an objective look at a just a few things NASA has done in the past 25 years: two shuttles destroyed and many astronauts killed because of management incompetence, the Hubble mirror fiasco, an ISS that's little more than a tourist destination for the Russians, and a management willing to silence its scientists during the Bush administration to suit its political purposes.

In fairness, you don't seem to have an apt perspective for the assessments and comparisons you're trying to make

NASA currently operates on half the budget it did during the height of the Apollo program, which at it's peak conducted four missions in one year. They had a small handful of unmanned programs at the time, although their aeronautics research was pretty active back then. In comparison the shuttle program has averaged four missions per year for its entire 32 year history, including a busy nine mission in 1985. In addition to that, there's about half a dozen deep space observing missions and I think over a dozen solar system exploration missions currently active, and quite a few more in development. Some of those solar system missions have potentially major repercussions for life on earth. Dawn, Stardust, and Deep Impact, for example, all are studying asteroids and comets, which pose potential civilization ending threats to us. SOHO and Ulysses study the sun, making us better able to understand the solar "weather" and how it affects the earth. There's also a host of earth-observing satellites conducting studies too diverse to list offhand.

The shuttle program, fully accounting for its two fatal accidents, is demonstrably as safe or safer than any existing manned spacecraft. The Hubble mirror issue was one small footnote in that program, and even during the three years before it was replaced, it had capabilities exceeding any ground based scope, and has since made quite a few revolutionary discoveries. The ISS is far from a tourist destination. Its crews have conducted over 700 scientific experiments onboard including various forms of earth observation and (here it is for you) cancer research (source. It's also been a driving force for international cooperation and even moderation, most notably during last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia. The issue with Hansen is irrelevant to NASA's value. The distortion of his work occurred at a middle-management level, was not an overt threat to NASA's mission, and did not prevent him from conducting his research. On a more basic level, you skip right past the fact that NASA enabled much of Hansen's work in the first place!

by **iamlucky13** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:51 am

aristarchusinexile wrote:
fatcitymax wrote:
" an ISS that's little more than a tourist destination for the Russians, and a management willing to silence its scientists during the Bush administration to suit its political purposes."
You are crediting the ISS to NASA when the U.S. didn't have the technology to lift the main components into orbit?

I'm not sure where you might have gotten that impression, but the US lifted all but two of the major components of the ISS in to orbit (Russia: Zarya and Zvezda; US: Unity, Destiny, Harmony, Columbus, Kibo, Quest, and all seven major pieces of the truss and solar array structure).

Zarya and Zvezda were lifted by the Russians, not because the US couldn't lift them (or the space station Freedom equivalents from before it was the ISS), but because those were components the Russians offered as part of their contribution to the project. Frankly, it was a reasonable use for them, since they were already partially built for the cancelled Mir-2 space station.

Anyways, among space missions, Kepler is one of the more remarkable ones for how it will affect the general public's understanding of their place in the universe, and the cost ($650 million), is relatively low for the amount it will accomplish.

Frenchy wrote:I guess it would have to depend on the interacting energies between the solar systems' within a galaxy.

Galactic collapse of a galaxy might be triggered by W.I.M.P's (Winding Intergalactic Massive Planets), but far as the connection with global warming you're probably right...it would be a bit of a stretch. Large scale volcanic eruptions blocking out sunlight would probably be the best thing to tame global warming.

There are still probably lots of others things to consider too. Blackbody radiation, temperatures in space (is it uniform), and laws of thermodynamics as well (are they the same as on Earth?). A lot of these things I am unfamiliar with.

Kepler won't be used to study the earth's orbit. Regarding the rest of your post, you seem to be putting forth a lot of disjoint ideas, so I don't understand what your overall point or question is. WIMP means "Weakly Interacting Massive Particle" and is a candidate to explain dark matter. No proposed connection to global warming. There is no proposed link between interstellar interaction and volcanoes. Thermodynamics is expected to be the same anywhere else in the universe, and observations generally appear to support this. The temperature of space has long been known to vary, and these variations have been mapped with excellent detail by the WMAP space probe.

And while I'm at it, Chris, great job putting space exploration in context with the rest of human endeavor.

by **Frenchy** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:09 am

I guess it would have to depend on the interacting energies between the solar systems' within a galaxy.

Galactic collapse of a galaxy might be triggered by W.I.M.P's (Winding Intergalactic Massive Planets), but far as the connection with global warming you're probably right...it would be a bit of a stretch. Large scale volcanic eruptions blocking out sunlight would probably be the best thing to tame global warming.

There are still probably lots of others things to consider too. Blackbody radiation, temperatures in space (is it uniform), and laws of thermodynamics as well (are they the same as on Earth?). A lot of these things I am unfamiliar with.

by **BMAONE23** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:00 am

Frenchy wrote:Does anyone know if Kepler can be used to see if Earth's orbit through the galaxy changed last (leap) year?

If it did, hopefully it will take care or address the global warming issue that some of you are worried about.

Don't quite understand how the solar systems Galactic Orientation would have any effect on Global Warming.
The Sun is the first step in the warming effect as it is the source of heat radiation that is pumped into the warming cycle. The Heat Island Effect is another lesser influence but is still dependant on Solar input for the initial source of heat. Atmospheric Water Vapor is another source as it causes the warm solar radiation to remain in the cycle (prevents it's escape to space.) Then the Gasses like Carbon Dioxide and Methane which not only hold in a portion of solar heat but also aid in the increase of Atmospheric Water Vapor. All of these factors lead to a gradual increase in global temperatures...But how does the solar systems galactic position have any effect???

by **Frenchy** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:00 am

Does anyone know if Kepler can be used to see if Earth's orbit through the galaxy changed last (leap) year?

If it did, hopefully it will take care or address the global warming issue that some of you are worried about.

by **bhrobards** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:40 am

Dear Fatcitymax- the fact is we work on all of these things simultaniously. There is a synergistic effect as new observations ripple out across all fields and we move forward on all fronts. NASA is some of the best money ever spent. Pure science has proven its value over and over.

by **apodman** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:03 pm

apodman wrote:Criticism is one thing, but ...

fatcitymax wrote:Take an objective look at a just a few things NASA has done in the past 25 years: two shuttles destroyed and many astronauts killed because of management incompetence, the Hubble mirror fiasco, an ISS that's little more than a tourist destination for the Russians, and a management willing to silence its scientists during the Bush administration to suit its political purposes.

Good criticisms, fatcitymax. I am hardly an apologist for NASA, and my personal list of criticisms about what NASA chooses to do and how well they do it is longer and more detailed than yours above. But it doesn't add up to or justify a blanket indictment of NASA, its goals, and space exploration in general.

For the record, I think that the whole robots-on-Mars thing is working out very well after some earlier Mars probe failures, and that we should have at least dozens of them crawling all over Mars and Luna. I also think that NASA is managing to stretch a relatively meager budget over a whole lot of diverse science with various deep space probes for a range of purposes. I want to go to Pluto (and back) myself, but I understand why it isn't a priority.

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:44 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
" an ISS that's little more than a tourist destination for the Russians, and a management willing to silence its scientists during the Bush administration to suit its political purposes."

You are crediting the ISS to NASA when the U.S. didn't have the technology to lift the main components into orbit?

by **aristarchusinexile** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:42 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?
How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS? Or how about halting global warming?

Cure for cancer? Stop mercilessly abusing our bodies.

by **fatcitymax** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:37 pm

lack experience in R & D

I've spent over 20 years in basic R&D. But R&D experience isn't necessary for a taxpayer to be disgusted with NASA's performance.

Also, your posts display your immaturity.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:08 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
NASA is the R & D department for the US
Wake up Dr. Rip Van Skeptic. Silicon Valley, CA and Route 128, MA have been the USA technology development centers for the past 40 years.

I'm perfectly awake, Silicon Valley companies expounds on NASA's innovations, or are contracted out on NASA’s dollar for product development. By your statements it’s clear you lack experience in R & D. I would suggest opening your eyes but your vision would remain obstructed by polyps and hemorrhoids.

fatcitymax is now invisible.

by **fatcitymax** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

NASA is the R & D department for the US

Wake up Dr. Rip Van Skeptic. Silicon Valley, CA and Route 128, MA have been the USA technology development centers for the past 40 years.

by **fatcitymax** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:57 am

... so are you really sure that you want to spend money on BOTH?

I'm sure I don't want to spend money on a sclerotic bureaucracy no longer capable of "moon-shot" projects, whereas the biotech industry is capable of such advances in science and technology. The only similarity between NASA of today and NASA of 40 years ago is the meatball.

NASA bashing by fatcitymax ...

Poor irrelevant NASA and its apologists. Take an objective look at a just a few things NASA has done in the past 25 years: two shuttles destroyed and many astronauts killed because of management incompetence, the Hubble mirror fiasco, an ISS that's little more than a tourist destination for the Russians, and a management willing to silence its scientists during the Bush administration to suit its political purposes.

by **Dr. Skeptic** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:34 am

fatcitymax wrote:
Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".
Of course you are right; however, building Kepler, a new Mars rover, and returning to the Moon require little fundamental research and will produce few spinoffs that couldn't be developed more efficiently by other means. Even worse, they will not likely result in any significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge.

Such as the Apollo program with a 26 billion dollar investment which has increased the world economy by over 300 trillion dollars (and still growing), responsible for the technology that made kidney dialysis possible (research not affordable by the privet sector), created the IC chips that evolved into the microprocessor, plus volumes of other unforeseen technology spin-offs that has improved the quality of life for billions of people on this planet out of the reach of the privet sector. A small fraction of the real moneys NASA has added to the US economy is being returned to the space program - do the math Einstein.

NASA is the R & D department for the US, I don't want to rely on other government's hand-me-down technologies to dictate my future and I don't complain about the cost of that privilege. Active investments in advancements is far more prudent than investing in your proposition of 100% reactive spending. "Few" and "Unlikely"? Instead, can you put your opinions in to quantitative values that have scientific significance?

Pontificating from a pessimistic, ignorant bias serves no one, not you or your agenda.

by **apodman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:38 pm

This link ...

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 332#p80332

... will land you in the middle of a thread with similar arguments, including much of the same NASA bashing by fatcitymax as here. In fact, all of fatcitymax's posts do nothing but bash NASA. Criticism is one thing, but fatcitymax only produces one brand of vitriol (just check his posts).

by **neufer** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:14 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?
How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS?

Over $100 billion is spent annually on biomedical research in the U.S.
Important research has been held up not due to lack of money but rather because of politics.

fatcitymax wrote:Or how about halting global warming?

A lot of global warming solutions have been held up because of politics.

Of course, the more people we save with biomedical research
the more people there will be to contribute to global warming...
so are you really sure that you want to spend money on BOTH?

by **apodman** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:44 pm

Averted Vision wrote:Will you spend your life on this one tiny grain
Your sense buried deep in the tangible plain
While you close your eyes to your rightful domain
Shut up in a cell in your own tiny brain

Crawl back in your hole if you're soft in the spine
You haven't a soul when you spurn the sublime
The only two choices: advance or decay
Bog down or reach up, only you pick the way

(Saxophone solo ...)

by **geckzilla** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:02 pm

We don't even know that there is a cure for cancer or what else we may discover in space. I'm all for keeping both areas funded. Heh.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:51 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs..
All they've shown is that Mars is a dead rock. What a surprise.

Hardly. They've revealed in great detail the geological history of the planet, which in turn has significantly increased our knowledge about the formation of planets in our system, and of the Earth itself.

And current knowledge of stellar formation is highly advanced.

Our current knowledge of stellar formation has lots of room for improvement, and our knowledge of stellar system formation (that is, the evolution of material around stars that doesn't become part of those stars) is not highly advanced at all. There are a number of competing, and substantially different, theories that are awaiting better observational evidence of the sort Kepler is designed to provide.

by **fatcitymax** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs..

All they've shown is that Mars is a dead rock. What a surprise.

And current knowledge of stellar formation is highly advanced.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:17 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".
Of course you are right; however, building Kepler, a new Mars rover, and returning to the Moon require little fundamental research and will produce few spinoffs that couldn't be developed more efficiently by other means. Even worse, they will not likely result in any significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge.

Whatever technological spinoffs they might produce is uncertain, but also unimportant. Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs in our understanding of planetary science, and there's no reason to think future ones won't as well. The Kepler mission is likely to produce a massive breakthrough in our understanding of stellar system formation, which would certainly qualify as a significant increase in scientific knowledge. There's no way we are going to develop a solid theory of stellar formation without much more observational information about the material orbiting mature stars, which is what Kepler is all about.

by **fatcitymax** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:11 pm

Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".

Of course you are right; however, building Kepler, a new Mars rover, and returning to the Moon require little fundamental research and will produce few spinoffs that couldn't be developed more efficiently by other means. Even worse, they will not likely result in any significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:53 pm

fatcitymax wrote:Of course it would exist: "Necessity is the mother of invention." Kepler, another Mars rover, and returning the Moon are highly inefficient means of developing useful, practical technology. Better to give the funds to the biotech and health industry, for example, via SBIR grants. NASA has become little more than an inbred hobby shop for all sorts of poor science and engineering.

Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".

You should probably be taking your message to some other forum. We are largely a group of people inspired by the output of research sponsored by NASA and other agencies active in space science.

by **fatcitymax** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:40 pm

Much of the technology that makes medical research possible wouldn't even exist but for the spinoffs of space science.

Of course it would exist: "Necessity is the mother of invention." Kepler, another Mars rover, and returning the Moon are highly inefficient means of developing useful, practical technology. Better to give the funds to the biotech and health industry, for example, via SBIR grants. NASA has become little more than an inbred hobby shop for all sorts of poor science and engineering.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:28 pm

fatcitymax wrote:
Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?
How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS? Or how about halting global warming?

It is faulty logic to stop spending on one area of research just because there are other worthy areas as well. Much of the technology that makes medical research possible wouldn't even exist but for the spinoffs of space science. Global warming can't be halted without a much better understanding of our planet, and part of that understanding comes from understanding planets in general. All of which is dependent on space science research as well.

Starship Asterisk*

Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

Re: Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)