I’m sure we’ll be a positive presence in space too. :rolleyes:
As I’ve said before, life fucks up planets, get over it. It doesn’t matter how hard we try to clean up our act, we’ll still screw things up. We could all become vegetarians tomorrow, and that’d still leave the fruititarians, breatharians, and PETA cheesed off at us (after all, the plants we’re eating could be used to feed an animal :rolleyes: ). We can minimize the damage all we want, but the law of diminishing returns will come into play, and pretty soon we’re spending billions of dollars for a .000000000000000001% improvement. No matter what we do, it won’t be good enough for some people. The only way to ensure that humans don’t muck up anything is to wipe the species out.
How long do you think that modern civilization has, anyway? So far, every civilization on Earth has suffered a regression/collapse, I can’t think of any reason why ours should be unique. When we do regress/collapse, the environment is going to take one helluva hit this time around. Imagine the mess that places like NYC will be if the power fails, not for a couple of days, but for a month or more. Getting food in or people out will be a monumental nightmare. At that point, people are going to be worried less about the environment, and more about day-to-day survival. And they’ll be dying by the thousands, if not millions at some point. Going to make it that much harder to regain lost ground when that happens.
As usual, we can turn to physicist Bob Park for a nice summary of the week’s news contrasting the manned and unmanned space programs:
I don’t know what sort of fantasy world you live in, pervert, but here in corporate America where I work, a manager failing quite abysmally seems to be pretty much guarantee that he’ll continue to move up the chain of command. [And, we are not necessarily talking about failures where they did a good job but were just a little unlucky…We are talking about some cases where it ought to have been obvious from the get-go that they were screwing up.] Go figure!
I’ve been trying to fathom the fantasy world you live in for some time. 
Yes. Many large bureaucratic organizations suffer from the same sorts of inertia that I was talking about. However, in the free market, that is, with corporations, there is a feedback mechanism which prevents the wildest abuses. Granted if the corporation is large enough, officers can do stupid things and not be held accountable. But eventually, the corporation will suffer and they will be held accountable. This rule that you see in large corporations applies even more to governments. They and they alone have the power to extract money from everyone else. If you think of some of government’s functions in terms of competition, they are the only ones with the power to make said competition illegal.
My point, is that far from being a counter example to what I was talking about, your post proves my point that governments are less efficient tha private interests.
But, democratic governments have a way to be held accountable too…by the voters. It is, admittedly, far from perfect. But, then, I think we have seen that the accountability through the marketplace is far from perfect too.
Just to clarify, I am not claiming that the government does most things more efficiently. In fact, I don’t think it does. I am just trying to counterbalance the sort of simplistic notions that are sometimes bandied about here by libertarian-leaning folks whereby the government is some bloated bureaucracy that can never get anything done right and private enterprise is this wonderous system where bureaucracy has disappeared, merit rules the day, failure is always punished and virtue and hard work rewarded (with the reward and punishment correctly going to those who deserve it). Being immersed in a corporate bureaucracy, I find the latter views particularly amusing. (Sometimes I think I need to get out of corporate America before I become too much of a socialist … I probably need a tour of duty in a government bureaucracy to experience firsthand just how bad that is too.)
Fair enough. to the extent that I made anything like the impression you describe I withdraw it. I did not mean to suggest that markets or private interests are utopia or miraculous or anything like that. My point was only that markets work better than governments because you don’t vote every few years, you vote every time you purcharse, or every time you invest. I did not mean to suggest that governments do not have feedback mechanisms. I know we were not talking about dictatorships. I was only pointing out that the feedback mechanisms in the free market work far better for some things. I’ll agree that they do not work better for all things.
Better yet, go start your own business. You’ll turn into a rabid libertarian yet.
I bet Parks jerks off to pics of Asimo he’s so damned anti-human. The ISS and the Cassini/Huygens missions are entirely different things, comparing them is like comparing sex to the Dewey Decimal System. One of the reasons that NASA’s so chickenshit scared about the shuttle is because of people like Parks who start screaming whenever one of the things blows up or has some kind of problem.
You want a real comparison? Take a look at the amount of news coverage the Mars missions have gotten and compare it to what Cassini/Huygens are getting. Let’s see if NASA again breaks records for the number of hits to a website when Huygens touches down on Titan. I’m betting it won’t.
Mars has occupied a place in mythos and the public mindset that no other planet in the solar system has. There’s been probably a dozen or so movies about Mars, none that I know of deal with Titan.
Folks are interested in Mars because there’s the possibility that life might exist/have existed there, but Saturn? Titan? Who the hell cares?
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, it’s theoretically possible that there might be life there (and there’s been several works of fiction which have discussed it), but it can’t capture the imagination of people, because there’s no possibility that humans could ever live on those worlds in a manner similar to how we live on Earth. No way to terraform Saturn or Titan in any manner, whereas Mars, people can at least have the simplistic idea that all it needs is plants.
Oh, and show me how the data from Cassini/Huygens is going to improve life here on Earth from a technological standpoint. I’m not saying that the mission is worthless or that the money could be better spent in other areas, I’m asking how that data can be used to advance technology here.
Umm…I hate to tell you, Tuckerfan, but the Mars missions were unmanned and Bob Park is a big fan of them. He is not a big fan of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars to put a man on Mars long after almost all of the significant scientific discoveries will have been made there.
Well, even better than the few-and-far-between technological spinoffs from extremely pricey manned space programs, Cassini/Huygens and the Mars probes are doing real science, you know the stuff that gets published in journals like Science, Nature, and whatever specialized journals exists in the field. This advances human understanding of our universe and our place in it. Good science has also historically led to good technology
No shit.
Again, he’s anti-human. Parks would get his panites in a wad if a privately funded mission went to Mars. He’d whine about us humans mucking up the planet. Simple fact of the matter is that no matter how many robot probes or manned expeditions we send to Mars, we’ll never know everything about the place. We’ll never know everything about the Earth, either.
I’m not saying that good science won’t come out of the missions, I’m asking what kinds of technological improvements we can expect. Even the manned missions failures can be written up in the various science journals, since the journals present both positive and negative results.
Good. Then you should have no problem posting them.
In a novel I have recelently read, (taking place in 2012), it is discussed that the ISS was mainly built to help pump money into the failing economies of Russia and other participating economies. This is plausable argumrent, but has a few flaws, is is dangerous for participants (sapce accidents are a very real possibility), can be achieved by a simple foriegn aid or trade treaty (more efficinetly to boot), and as an old saying goes, is like going to you ass to get to your elbow. By the was, if any of you are interested, the book was Domain by Steve Alten, an excellent read.
That’s certainly partially true in a sense. There’s a real worry that the Russian rocket scientists could be hired on by “rogue states” to build missiles for them. NASA has shifted work to the Russian Space Agency in order to keep their scientists busy on projects. Economic aid programs might achieve some of the same results (but could be a harder sell in Congress, who controls NASA’s purse strings), but I can’t imagine the kind of psychological impact it would have on a rocket scientist if he went from designing ISS components to designing door handles for some Russian automobile company. He might be inclined to go off and build missiles for somebody since he’s more familiar with that aspect of engineering and would no doubt find it more challenging.
Which other economies? Supporting the former Soviet space technology was an important motive, as Tuckerfan explained. But I wasn’t aware that the US paid for participation by other nations. Europe and Japan have spent about $8 billion total of their money on ISS so far. (And both of their lab modules are still in storage at the Cape, I believe).
Aren’t the Russian launch facilities in one of the Former Soviet Republics? If so, then it’s possible that they make money off of each launch. Given that some of the FSRs haven’t faired as well as Russia economically since the break up (and given how bad things are in some parts of Russia, I’d hate to see what it’s like some place worse), they might be desperately be in need of the cash a launch would provide.
I did some checking, and found this site.
According to it there are 4 former Soviet launch sites that are still active. 2 are in European Russia, 1 is in Siberian Russia, and the last is in Kazakstant.
Another site shows that there are many command centers all over the former USSR. Though these sites both predate the ISS and therefore don’t prove they are used for it, it is likely they would be used. The owners of these sites (the new governments of these countries) would * most likely* see the advantage in letting their richer and more powerful (read dangerous) neighbors use them, for a modest fee, of course.