Obviously any country is free to take on malaria, and the reality is that if eradication happened it’d probably be a world wide push. But if America is looking to use it’s scientific expertise for fame and glory, in my opinion this would be a golden opportunity for America to prove that we are awesome. It’s my opinion that malaria eradication would be a grander and more glorious contribution to the hope and spirit of humanity and our nation that walking around on a far away rock just to say we did it.
Several factors contributed to the failure of the first malaria eradication campaign, including anti-DDT activists, the emergence of drug resistant strains, and changing population movements The fact that they didn’t even try to include tropical Africa didn’t help. While the instability of local governments is a factor, that didn’t stop smallpox or Guinea worm eradication. Note that there has never been an effectively widely used vaccine, so anti-vaxers are not really a factor.
You can assign blame all over the place, but what it adds up to is that to get rid of malaria we would need a balls-out no-holds-barred, massively expensive international push- exactly the kind of scientific push that go us into space. We (as in humanity) just couldn’t muster that up during the critical period of 1955-1977, when malaria was under control enough for eradication to be a very reachable possibility.
Maybe, just maybe, we as a nation or a species or whatever finally has what it takes to do it now. Epidemiologists have had time to lick their wounds and regroup. Global health organizations have unprecedented reach and a few new successes under their belts. People are finally willing to mention the possibility of eradication again.
If we (as a nation or a species) are looking for a grand challenge, here it is. If we want to bring hope and optimism to the world, how about coordinating our best scientists and the like in an effort to finally triumph over this ancient evil that has been killing us by the millions for thousands of years?
Here is a decent article on the history of malaria erradication. I recommend the Coming Plague as a thick and detailed but very personal and readable book about emerging diseases and what we are doing to fight them. It has a really good chapter on the first malaria elimination effort.
Note that I am addressing the idea that we need the space program because it is a massive scientific effort that brings fame and optimism to America. My goal is not to point out how the money could be better spent, as much as to point out that it’s obviously false that the space program is unique in it’s ability to inspire and bring respect to our nation.
There are many other great projects that will have the same effect, but also can improve our lives on Earth right here right now. These are “cool” projects.
And we can cure disease. Our lifespan has gone from 30-45 in the beginning of the last century to 67.2 worldwide right now! Think about that. That is practically a miracle. You even stand a chance of living a long and full life with AIDS these days. Let’s bring this miracle around the world!
We can justify ourselves all we want with the old “you will always have the poor among you” line, but it’s BS we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better. Try telling that to a dude dying of a disease that you didn’t die from because you popped an antibiotic, and you’ll see what I mean.
Well, as you said we wiped out smallpox but people don’t talk about the post-smallpox age but they do talk about the space age. Sorry, but space age is catchier than smallpox. (heh)
Anyway, the US spends something like 2.5 trillion on health care, and as much as a little over half that, or I guess 1.2 trillion is spent by the government so again, 9 billion here or there isn’t going to be the miracle tipping point where we could cure this or that disease if only greedy old NASA weren’t HOGGING ALL THE MONEY. Or in your case, HOGGING ALL THE INSPIRATION AND RESPECT.
It’s certainly fair to say people’s ideas about what our spending priorities should be don’t seem very realistic sometimes.
I’m amazed that people in this thread who are so often vehemently against government spending to stimulate the economy or provide for the public welfare would turn into starry-eyed geeks over some pie-in-the-sky space exploration fantasies. Our institutions are fading and our infrastructure crumbling, but let’s go all in on that moon base idea. :rolleyes:
Keep scrolling down. Also see [post=9430334]Can there be any minerals or precious metals on the moon?[/post]. In general, it would be much easier to extract minerals from small asteroids, which can easily be disassembled, pulverized, and smelted to extract useful metals and radioactives which can be used to support a growing space industrial infrastructure or cheaply shipped “downhill” to Earth with having to lift them against another gravity well first. Operating on the Moon’s surface, as indicated in the paper cited in the first linked post, would be difficult and perilous.
The hijacks about other efforts to support public health and infrastructure in lieu of the space program are standard issue non sequiturs by people who simply find any discussion of space and technology tiresome. Although it is true that there is a limited pool of budget to draw from, it isn’t as if it is an either/or condition; there are plenty of other areas of spending that massively eclipse both the space program and public health programs such as ill-founded strategic defense development, nuclear weapon sustainment, farm and dairy subsidies, et cetera which could be better managed and allocated. The development of a space industrial infrastructure, while certainly decades out even in the most optimistic estimates, may manifestly improve both the standard of living and eliminate many sources of environmental pollution from mining and processing on the Earth’s surface.
Was Obama throwing the NASA engineer and scientist union under the bus because its members lacked innovation
or (and this is more likely)
Is this Obama’s payoff to the Union for lying early on about global warming by reducing stress and workload on the union members until the old codgers retire.
This is a payoff to the Union somewhere. The US space program has not accomplished a single thing worth mentioning in 20 years all because of The NASA engineer and scientist union.
I think Bush knew what he was doing when he announced his inspirational new mandate to return to the stars, as it were. NASA probably also knew they were going to have to spend money and time on something their heart isn’t really in.
Sucks to be NASA, really. They’re such a well-known organization and politicians love to slash something here, approve something there and it makes the taxpayers happy that their politicians are DOING SOMETHING.
What irks me is if Obama wants “game-changing new technology” he should put his money where his mouth is. Whether NASA does it or he makes Burt Rutan filthy rich… whatever. Articulate your mandate for America’s space program - and pay for it. You can’t wait for private industry to come up with game-changing technology to achieve your goals if you don’t say what your fucking goals are.
Whether anything there is worth mining is completely dependent on whether it’s economical. I think I know what you mean by the question, but you probably need to restate it. I believe you mean something like, “Is there anything there that is valuable, regardless of whether it is actually worth mining?”
Is there anything on the moon worth $20,000 or more per pound to ship it back? I don’t think so, unless it’s really good drugs. But then again, some people might pay $2K for an ounce of lunar regolith, but probably not enough people to make the whole venture worth it.
If you want to stay on the moon for awhile is it worth it to mine and process there instead of hauling material up at $10 or $20,000/pound? That’s a good question.
Well then I revise my previous posts to say that we need non-rocket space launch for the sake of farming floaty bits.
Information may be great, but you’re going to get far more information if there’s a financial benefit in making the trip to start with because then you get more frequent trips. If people care about preserving the space initiative either for scientific knowledge or for space travel, finding a cost effective way to get up there is more important in the long run. So if there is any argument to be made that space exploration can be even a minor loser, pricewise, with a bit more initial overlay, that argument should be made and popularized.
This is exactly right. I actually tend to agree with the general direction put forward by this new shift - encourage private industry, let them take over and let government provide the market by guaranteeing X number of paid launches to meet government requirements. This frees NASA’s budget up for doing stuff that only NASA can do.
That’s well and good, but for that to work you need a vision. For NASA to engage in engineering programs, they need requirements. The prime cause of failure of large engineering products is poor or inadequate requirements. When you do engineering without focus, your projects run out of control and you waste time and money building things no one needs.
Apollo was successful because it had very tight requirements. The engineers of the LEM could build an optimal vehicle because they knew exactly what it needed to do on every step of the trip. Had they been told, “We need some kind of lander that will land a few men on some other world, for some indefinite stay”, the result would most likely not have been successful. And yet, NASA doesn’t even have a direction as specific as that.
For example, one of the vague guidelines they’ve been given is to work on refueling depots in space. And yet, there is no mission planned that requires them. What kind of fuel? How much? How does it get up there? How long does it need to stay viable in orbit? What kind of spaceship will use it? How much fuel will be transferred? No one knows. For that matter, no one even knows if there will be a future mission that requires such a thing.
In the meantime, without a grand vision there is nothing to excite the public, nothing for kids to cheer for, nothing for Discovery Channel documentarians to make episodes for. These kinds of programs tend to languish in obscurity, and therefore become easy pickings for politicians. NASA has started a zillion such advanced programs only to have them killed before they are completed.
My prediction is that if NASA doesn’t come up with a grand vision that it can use to build support from the public and Congress, its budget will be slowly chopped up until it’s but a mere shadow of its former self.
First, I find it odd I got attacked as if I am “anti science fiction” merely as I don’t find science fiction a great basis to make current policy.
In fact I love science fiction, read it avidly to this day, love sci-fi films and in particular the more gritty and realism oriented ones such as that Firefly production.
However, making policy off of dreaming and impossibilities relative to current technology and resources is daft. It is also wasteful. Blasting humans into space with no particular scientific rational other than perhaps to play around with overcoming effects of no gravity (which seem to involve … creating gravity equivalent in the end) is wasteful romantic idiocy. Even solar system exploration can more effectively be done roboticly at present, until material and bio-sciences advance to the point that survivability is better assured.
An added thought, there is a line of argument here about supposed lack of hope and optimism relative to critics of the wasteful pointlessness of blasting humans into space at this time. I would rather suggest that the other side actually is expressing a profound pessimism relative to on-planet development that relative to technological progress is unjustified.
I was responding to this, do try to keep context:
Note, a mystical thousands years in the future justification for a near term policy decision.
Shrug. There is nothing to say humans can actually do so, and certainly nothing likely to be able to be effected in this sense within several generations.
Thus the realm of fiction, relative to current policy and expenditure.
Otherwise, I agree with this:
Emphasis added.
Moving along:
Doesn’t seem particularly different at all.
Asked and answered.
Although my utilisation of impossible is in an ordinary rather than extra-ordinary, absolute sense. And relative to the current investment of scarce capital (although not mine per se, you lot can bloody well piss away your capital as you like).
Light speed.
Again, for the value of impossible relative to current realities. If you want to fantasize over ten thousand years, well that’s another matter. But that is science fiction.
Well mate, your earth example means fuck all relative to the question, as rather evidently humanity was expanding in an environment not fundamentally hostile to its own basic existence. Of course if one takes
However, taking this absurd rejoinder on its face value, the argument made would be something like an argument to the King of England in 1400 arguing for an immediate colonisation of Greenland or some hypothetical Arctic land due to some hand waving argument about the future potential of the Danes to … well do something terribly romantic and impressive from such a base.
Said King would rightly have put the idiot in irons for wasting his time with utter foolishness. Of course the more reasonable proposition of step-wise and commercially actionable building of ships to exploit the spice routes, well that would make sense.
(and of course see below regarding the whole ‘universe populating’ framework as it wasn’t I who posed that).
Regardless, reminder again my comment was relative to this argument justifying current expenditures on the romantic fantasy of populating the universe (a right queer justification for current expenditure in a world of limited resources and better uses of capital):
The above is romanticism.
Were the phrasing relative to “man should invest rationally in investigating ways to exploit the solar system on the basis that sometime in c. 100 years the cost-benefit basis of exploiting near-planet mineral deposits may become plausible and actionable” well then I would say, quite right, good time to continue investing in developing space capacity, although not on a romantic human centred basis. But this is “leaving the planet and exploring the universe.” T’wasn’t me who posed it in those terms as a response to a critique.
I would note that for the vast majority of the population, either of the US or of the planet, the romantic clap trap about ‘doing it for humanity’ means fuck all as by a strictly biological analysis, their descendants have an effectively zero probabilistic chance of making off-planet (never mind the cumulative probabilities of extinction of their line due to accident, etc over thousands of years).
As an argument for current expenditure this is as absurd as the Left blithering on about eliminating war or poverty as a justification for some pet program. Wonderful sentiments and long-term goals, but not a proper justification for a specific expenditure, not to any non-dewy eyed romantic.
I rather find that Americans tend to vastly over-estimate the degree to which any of their efforts, including NASA, inspire people around the world. Real messianic streak. Often charming, also often self-delusional.
NASA’s symbol ought to be a toilet, with 100$ bills being tossed into it. It is a money-waster par excellance.
If space exploration is so economically attractive, let private industry do it.
Manned space exploration will only become fesible untill nuclear rockets are perfected-till then, its mostly Roman Circuses.
I am astounded by this thread, especially since Obama actually proposes an increase in NASA’s budget.
I thought rationalists knew Bush’s moon shot was just more inanity from the Great Decider. One day when his attention span was longer than 2 minutes, he thought he could emulate JFK! Or rather, fool the stupidest into thinking he was emulating JFK, since Bush’s NASA programs were never properly planned or funded and came at the expense of programs recommended by NASA’s scientists.
Yet here, the wingnut Dopers are doing cartwheels pretending to be pro-science and criticizing Obama. :smack:
Eh. I think The Bad Astronomer has a good take on it. But, all I get from that is “rely heavily on private business.” “Do what NASA does best: explore the boundaries.” “innovation, pushing the limits, paving the road.”
(Note to self: do not buy property in Bellingham, WA.)
As I said earlier, what bothers me most about this move is not that we’re no longer planning a jaunt to the moon but that there really doesn’t seem to be a vision of what we want to achieve, space-wise (or at least one that has been communicated clearly). Mostly it seems to be “Eh, we’ll toodle around the space station for a while doing experiments, maybe do some sightseeing on the moon, and probably at some point go to Mars.” It’s less a vision and more a vague vacation itinerary.
A lot of the people who described launching satellites as pointless back in the 20th c. went on to say,when the benefits were obvious to even the most unimaginative Luddite, “Oh yes of course we need satellite technology, but thats far enough, lets stop now” .
No doubt the very same people who are against investment in future space exploration will retrospectively endorse it; but only after the benefits are physically apparent to them in their everyday lives.
Humankind progresses by taking chances, guessing and by using its imagination.
If it was left to the “sensible” and the unimaginative then we’d still be hunter gatherers living in caves.
Luckily for humans but not so luckily for the U.S. other nations consider it to be a venture that will pay back its investment in the future.
By then of course America by its non participation in any real sense of the word will be an “also ran” globally.
Who’s against space exploration? The Obama budget frees up more money for exploration. Cool stuff like JIMO (which was cancelled in 2005 because of the then-focus on manned space missions) is going to have more budget & emphasis now. So are space telescopes.
Manned missions are not a technological advancement over robotic ones. They’re
a separate path (just one that’s generally much harder to do). Technological progress does not stymie because of a lack of emphasis on manned missions. In fact most of us here, (and I believe most of NASA scientists) argue further that we suffer technologically by doubling down on manned missions. So much money & effort is required protecting & providing appropriate envrionmental systems for fragile human beings that mission goals go by the wayside, and basic R&D is lacking.
