How Much of the Space Pgm Deserves Support?
Starry-Nite
I was motivated to start this thread by recent comments posted by Mr.
Kickerston, regarding his views on the Hubble Space Telescope and the
Space Shuttle.
I am not looking for where we disagree, but rather I am hoping that we
can find elements of the space program whose worth we can all agree
on. I hope that we can, in this thread, avoid the programs that are
controversial.
And, can we PLEASE keep this thread focused on discussing science &
philosophy? No B.S. personal attacks! Let's try to exercise our
higher brain functions....
___________________
*Basic Question #1: Should we study astronomy?
It is rather pointless to discuss the merits of the space program if
there is no need for humanity to look beyond the Earth's atmosphere.
So, proponents, why is the study of astronomy worthy of the support of
humanity?
___________________
*Basic Question #2: Should the government be in the business of
funding astronomy?
I don't sense the desire to debate the value of private support. I
think that we can all agree that if Paul Allen wishes to use his own
money to fund the construction of a SETI telescope, that is his own
business; as is my somewhat more modest contribution to causes I
favor.
Still, how can government funding for astronomy be justified?
___________________
*Basic Question #3: Is the value of doing astronomy from space worth
the cost above and beyond the cost of doing astronomy on the ground?
Given the exponential increase in cost (and the shortened life cycle)
of doing astronomy in space, why is it worth the effort? Could the
same science be done more efficiently from the ground?
Also, is it just too soon to do space-based astronomy? Would it be
better to postpone further space-based astronomy missions until space
technology allows us to do the work more cheaply and reliably?
___________________
*Basic Question #4: Assuming that there is some positive consensus on
the above questions, are there elements of the space program that we
can universally agree on as being worthy of public support?
I am looking for a foundation of programs that have the support of
nearly all. For example, I suggest that we can all agree that
military intelligence, weather forecasting, communications, GPS, and
Earth-survey (i.e. LANDSAT) missions are agreed to be worthy of
support.
#4a: Are there other missions you would suggest are also universally
supported?
#4b: Are there other missions that would, if they were better
understood, garner universal support?
________________
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an astronomer, and I have some
current responsibilities with NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.
Thank you for your input!
¤ Clear skies & a star to steer by! >Michael ¤
>*******************************************************<
> Michael Foerster ¤ Pres/Research Lead, Skywatch-GL
> ¤Solar System Ambassador, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
> ¤Night Sky Net Coordinator, The Starry-Nite Society
> ¤E-Address: <Skyw...@insertabovedomain.net>
> ¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
> "If the stars should appear one night in a thousand
> years, how would men believe and adore and preserve
> for many generations the remembrance of the city
> of God which had been shown." >Ralph Waldo Emerson
>*******************************************************<
Phil Wheeler
Starry-Nite wrote:
>
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #3: Is the value of doing astronomy from space worth
> the cost above and beyond the cost of doing astronomy on the ground?
>
> Given the exponential increase in cost (and the shortened life cycle)
> of doing astronomy in space, why is it worth the effort? Could the
> same science be done more efficiently from the ground?
>
> Also, is it just too soon to do space-based astronomy? Would it be
> better to postpone further space-based astronomy missions until space
> technology allows us to do the work more cheaply and reliably?
>
Some astronomy (Gamma Ray, X-Ray) is best done in space and has been for
30 years or so (HEAO/Einstein, Compton/GRO, Chandra/AXAF to name only
examples I was personally involved in designing).
And while visible light astronomy can be done from Earth, Hubble has
clearly proven the value of space for that, too.
Phil
Chris L Peterson
>>How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
This question can be approached somewhat objectively by evaluating the
cost/benefit (of course, "benefit" can be a little tricky to nail down when
talking about knowledge). I think people have an instinctive feel for this,
which is seen in the range of support for various programs. At one end, you have
the system that places observation and communication systems in orbit. This has
nearly 100% support (as it should, I think) because it is obvious that the
return is high, even in a strictly monetary sense. Next you have unmanned
instruments intended primarily for the advancement of research. Again, support
is pretty high, but by no means universal. This is not unlike any scientific
research- everyone has different priorities for where limited resources should
be allocated. Space exploration is very high in my estimation; others would
sacrifice it completely for, say, ocean exploration. Finally, there is manned
space flight. This is simultaneously the most expensive and the most difficult
to define benefits for. Not surprisingly, it is the most controversial.
Personally, I favor maintaining some degree of human presence in space, although
I am generally opposed to the present Shuttle/ISS approach, for which I see a
very poor cost/benefit ratio.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Greg Crinklaw
>>How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
>
>
> I was motivated to start this thread by recent comments posted by Mr.
> Kickerston, regarding his views on the Hubble Space Telescope and the
> Space Shuttle.
This Kickerson person is just a troll yanking your chain. He doesn't
believe anything he says; he's just trying to get a rise out of you.
Jon Kickerston
"Starry-Nite" <SPAM...@Starry-Nite.net> wrote in message
news:cbd6db05.0406...@posting.google.com...
> >How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
>
> I was motivated to start this thread by recent comments posted by Mr.
> Kickerston, regarding his views on the Hubble Space Telescope and the
> Space Shuttle.
>
> I am not looking for where we disagree, but rather I am hoping that we
> can find elements of the space program whose worth we can all agree
> on. I hope that we can, in this thread, avoid the programs that are
> controversial.
>
> And, can we PLEASE keep this thread focused on discussing science &
> philosophy? No B.S. personal attacks! Let's try to exercise our
> higher brain functions....
I think I blame those in charge for most of the monetary problems we keep
running into for special projects, such as the space program. I have seen
special projects proposed and monetay allotments allowed, only to find out
later that a significant amount of funding has been diverted to, say, the
CEO or to people in charge of the organization. This happened in 911 for
example, and NASA has had their fair share of problems. As a result, I am
very reluctant to be in favor of such programs because of the uncertainty of
what the money is being used for. I'll do my best to answer your questions
below.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #1: Should we study astronomy?
Yes, if the monetary funding for any astro related programs is used for the
program's purpose only! As in the case of us amateurs, whose funding is
most likely personal and not from outside sources, if the opportunity exists
to "donate" a piece of astro equipment to a good, trustworthy cause, then by
all means do it if you have the means. Astro studies in the amateur's case,
due to personal funding, isn't an issue.
>
> It is rather pointless to discuss the merits of the space program if
> there is no need for humanity to look beyond the Earth's atmosphere.
> So, proponents, why is the study of astronomy worthy of the support of
> humanity?
I think we have to recognize our limits, both in spending and in
intelligence. This is obviously something most of us fail to do, and end up
going overbudget or trying to design something that we know may work
"someday" but not until technology of the future takes hold. It is true
that without dreams and ambition, the sound barrier would never have been
broken, but I really feel that space travel is an entirely different matter.
The speed of light is in itself a unique velocity and unlikely to ever be
broken. As far as the solar system is concerned, we continue to study Mars,
but what are we finding other than minerals? Has it been worth the cost to
deposit probes there? Perhaps Venus would have been a better candidate.
Yes, the atmosphere is harsh, but not all that different from the oceanic
environments regularly inhabited by the tiny organisms that thrive on the
products of sea volcanoes and lava. I think we're going to find that Mars
is pretty much dead and has been for a long time. I just question why money
continues to be spent to go there.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #2: Should the government be in the business of
> funding astronomy?
This goes back to how the money is regulated. If the money is going to be
diverted to other projects or excessive amounts to those in charge of the
project, then no. So, I'm not so sure here. If so, someone needs to watch
over them carefully, but then you start running into a "chain" problem (I'll
watch over him who watches over him, etc).
> I don't sense the desire to debate the value of private support. I
> think that we can all agree that if Paul Allen wishes to use his own
> money to fund the construction of a SETI telescope, that is his own
> business; as is my somewhat more modest contribution to causes I
> favor.
If you have the means and feel the cause is just, I suppose so.
> Still, how can government funding for astronomy be justified?
This is difficult, especially with the shuttle accidents and blunders and
many say that, although Hubble has discovered much, how does it benefit
"me". As in the case of the US, the warfare currently going on is a further
deterrent.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #3: Is the value of doing astronomy from space worth
> the cost above and beyond the cost of doing astronomy on the ground?
If we're going to do it, and do it right, we need a good space telescope,
one that uses multiple mirrors or even one on the moon. Yes, lots of money
here, so the question becomes, would it all be used for the intended purpose
or wasted?
> Given the exponential increase in cost (and the shortened life cycle)
> of doing astronomy in space, why is it worth the effort? Could the
> same science be done more efficiently from the ground?
Well, you're getting above the atmosphere and allowing new wavelengths of
light to be registered. Also, gamma, x-rays and the like don't have an air
blanket to pass through first. We've nearly reached our limits on the
ground, IMO. However, will people be willing to accept millions funded
toward such projects?
> Also, is it just too soon to do space-based astronomy? Would it be
> better to postpone further space-based astronomy missions until space
> technology allows us to do the work more cheaply and reliably?
Yes, I think so. We aren't ready because we can't even get along with one
another. We could probably do something simple and cost effective, but the
good stuff simply is going to have to wait.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #4: Assuming that there is some positive consensus on
> the above questions, are there elements of the space program that we
> can universally agree on as being worthy of public support?
Basic polling would be the way to find out. Put the questions on the ballet
and let people vote. Personally, I feel that in our current state, most of
what is being done in space isn't justified, but as I've found out here,
others plainly disagree.
> I am looking for a foundation of programs that have the support of
> nearly all. For example, I suggest that we can all agree that
> military intelligence, weather forecasting, communications, GPS, and
> Earth-survey (i.e. LANDSAT) missions are agreed to be worthy of
> support.
All of these share a common ground: they can save lives. However, would
astro studies? Not trying to drop a bomb here again, but just asking for
consideration of the possibility.
> #4a: Are there other missions you would suggest are also universally
> supported?
Military intelligence should always be a big one. It wouldn't hurt to
constantly monitor our sun either, which I think is done on a regular basis.
Communications is moderately important, but sometimes I think the world is
too depend on electromagnetic forms of communication.
> #4b: Are there other missions that would, if they were better
> understood, garner universal support?
Right now, I don't know. I think we should start curtailing our Mars
missions in favor of Venus perhaps, if we're looking for life, or the moon
if we're planning on a base eventually. The ongoing problems of corruption
and diverted funding have damaged much of the one time flexibility here
though.
> ________________
> In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an astronomer, and I have some
> current responsibilities with NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.
Thanks for opening the door and allowing me to present my thoughts in, I
hope, a more humane, less defensive, way.
Jon
Phil Wheeler
And that was quite a rise :-)
Phil
Jon Kickerston
"Greg Crinklaw" <capellasof...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10d93pn...@corp.supernews.com...
Not necessarily, Greg. I suggest reading my latest response.
Jon
Greg Crinklaw
>>This Kickerson person is just a troll yanking your chain. He doesn't
>>believe anything he says; he's just trying to get a rise out of you.
>
> Not necessarily, Greg. I suggest reading my latest response.
I'm not about to read anything more you have you say troll.
*PLONK*
Paul Lawler
news:pd0Bc.7204$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Starry-Nite" <SPAM...@Starry-Nite.net> wrote in message
>
> > the above questions, are there elements of the space program that we
> > can universally agree on as being worthy of public support?
>
> Basic polling would be the way to find out. Put the questions on the
ballet
> and let people vote. Personally, I feel that in our current state, most
of
> what is being done in space isn't justified, but as I've found out here,
> others plainly disagree.
Unfortunately you would be polling people with (for the most part) no
understanding of what they are voting on. If put to a popular vote, I
suspect almost all science programs would be cut in favor of more sports
stadiums. <g>
Jon Kickerston
You just did! *Double PLONK*
Paul Lawler
Sorry, Jon. Only one *PLONK* per customer. His contention is that he will
never read anything you post after he plonks, not before. The word "plonk"
refers to the sound you make upon hitting the bottom of his killfile. Once
one is plonked they are only seen through the replies of others. Unless, of
course, they constantly change their identity a la DJM.
Jon Kickerston
Jon
"Paul Lawler" <star...@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in message
news:lQ2Bc.11292$Wr....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jon Kickerston
"Paul Lawler" <star...@kilolaniDOT.net> wrote in message
Good point, I have to say.
Jon
Chris.B
> Unfortunately you would be polling people with (for the most part) no
> understanding of what they are voting on. If put to a popular vote, I
> suspect almost all science programs would be cut in favor of more sports
> stadiums. <g>
Would it be off-topic to ask at this point whether all those defense
ground-imaging systems have any astronomical spin-offs? Nobody gets to
vote on several (permanently nose-down) "Hubbles". Yet the money seems
to flow constantly in that direction without obvious increase in the
total sum of human knowledge. Probably quite the contrary.
I only raise this subject to contrast the difference in funds
available. Having watched and enjoyed "Enemy of the State" the other
night. No doubt my post is already on a hard disk somewhere as a
"potential risk" according to several filtering criteria. ;-)
Chris.B
Michael Martin-Smith
Distribution of Life in the Universe"- an important area , and IMHO a worthy
driver for our world Space programmes.
I believe however that this classical definition is too narrow, focusiing
as it does on Life's history and neglecting its future.
I propose a new, wider, definition for Astrobiology as
"The study of the Origins, Evolution , Distruibution, and Futureof Life and
Mind in an embryonic Universe"
This provides a philosophical rationale not only for our scientific study of
Space but also our active emergence into the Universe as a constructive and
creative force.
In today's geopolitical context, we can see the world as divided between
those powers and forces which enable such a Life enhancing philosphical and
ideological programme, ie the Western based culture of free enquiry,
democacy, enterprise, and exploration and those forces who deal only in
death, obscurantism and ruin , such as extreme Islamism, as exemplifed by
Al Qa'eda et al.
Imperfect as the West might be in some respects , in this context there can
be no dispute which of the two visions of the human future ought to prevail.
Our space programmes of exploration, development and , ultimately,
colonization are one of the significant cultural and evolutionary
differences which make the "War against Terror" however defined worth
winning.
On a minor note, many object to space programmes on the grounds that the
monies spent could feed/clean or otherwise significantly improve our lot on
Earth
We can say with apodictic certainty that the diversion of such monies would
achieve nothing to the good- either it would be diverted and "lost" into
Government bureaucracies or waste, or it would be given back in some measure
to the public who would spend it on narcotics, gambling, nicotine,
pornography or any of the other follies and trivia prevalent among us.
If we wish to improve the lot of Earth and its poorer denizens, let us scrap
the above vices and yield over a trillion dollars per year - if after that
we still needed more funds, it would be a sign of such mindblowing
ioncompetence that the comparative pittance spent of on space programmes
would avail us little indeed!
To sum up, I believe we should continue our robotic exploration of the
Cosmos, and also set up focussed programmes aimed at achieving a
self-sustainable expansionary extraterrestrial daughter civilization from
which human growth and evolution as a cosmic species can be assured, even if
Mother Nature destroys our civilizations here on Earth . This should be a
phased programme aimed at success within a historiclly useful period of
time- eg this century
Shakespeare wrote " There is a Tide in the affairs of men which taken at the
flood , leads on to Fortune..." The tide is now , and waits for no Man.
Ypu asked for ascientifc and philosphical view,of necessity this has been
quite a lengthy exposition but at least avoids B S and ad hominem attacks!
Dr Michael Martin-Smith
"Starry-Nite" <SPAM...@Starry-Nite.net> wrote in message
news:cbd6db05.0406...@posting.google.com...
Starry-Nite
perspective?
JON: "I think I blame those in charge for most of the monetary
problems we keep running into for special projects, such as the space
program. I have seen special projects proposed and monetay [sic]
allotments allowed, only to find out later that a significant amount
of funding has been diverted to, say, the CEO or to people in charge
of the organization. As a result, I am very reluctant to be in favor
of such programs because of the uncertainty of what the money is being
Used for."
Before I comment on budget matters, I must say that I am likely to
quickly put foot in mouth. I am a photon cruncher, not a number
cruncher. Still, I need to propose and monitor budgets for the work
we do, and regularly attend meetings where I compete with others (many
smarter than I!) for scope time and grant money.
The only space mission budget I know in any detail is MER (the Mars
Exploration Rovers), which was done within budget and in record time.
I am AMAZED at all the way-more-than-40-hour weeks (uncompensated)
most folks at JPL put into MER. The fact is that MER was too much to
do in too short a period of time. Still, we were given authorization
by NASA for the missions at Date X, and had to be ready to launch (due
to planetary alignments) at Date Y. We got it done, and to my
amazement both rovers are still roving.
Budget estimates are only a SWAG (Scientific Wild Assed Guess);
budgets can only guess where we will run into the unknown. Or, to
paraphrase Secretary Rumsfield, the unknown unknowns. For example,
one item on MER that gave us a LOT of trouble was the main parachute.
You would think that parachute design was a sufficiently advanced
technology so that creating a system for the MERs would be a straight
forward matter. It was not. We have learned (after many tries and
MANY folks working through sleepless nights) that we didn't understand
how parachutes would perform in Mars' atmosphere. Even after the
design and lab work and many shop builds and testing in wind tunnels
and in vacuum chambers, we STILL almost lost Spirit (MER-1)! Spirit
came in too fast, and the retro fired nearly too late. It was a very
near thing. Due to what we learned from the Spirit landing, we were
able to command Opportunity (MER-2) to deploy its chute earlier.
Opportunity's landing was more in line with mission design parameters.
Beagle-2 (the British lander) was not as successful. Last I heard,
the leading candidate for explaining the loss of the Beagle was an
under-estimate of the atmospheric density of Mars, leading to the
chute deploying too late, and the lander hitting the surface with too
much speed. (I lost my beagle when I was a kid, so I'm kind of
sensitive here...)
I could share a similar story about the problems we had in developing
the airbags for MER. We thought we had a handle on the problem and
the engineering. We built what we thought would work. We tested the
airbags and (to our horror) watched them rip to shreds. We said , "Oh
poopy-head", begged for more money and time, and went back at it until
we got it to work. The truth is that space is hard, that we are still
very early in the learning curve, and that our self-education will
come at costs.
I have two further views to share on our budget:
1) I can't speak to the cost of launch services (THAT would be a fun
thread!), but most of the parts that go into JPL's probes are made
right here at JPL. There ain't nobody at JPL getting rich off of
planetary science! IN fact, the opposite is true. To a person,
everyone at JPL could almost certainly find work in the private sector
for a LOT more money than what they earn here. I have seen the parts
being machined, and have held a few space-bound parts in my hands.
Damn near every bit of each probe is hand-crafted one-of-a-kind. It
has to survive in the most extreme circumstances, from hellish heat to
colder than a witch's bottom; all the while exposed to solar flares
and cosmic rays. It has to be feather-light, and tank-tough. I'm
always surprised that they work at all!
2) At JPL we have a lot of very smart people competing for a limited
amount of funding. Each of us act as a watchdog on other projects.
We WANT to minimize waste, so that we have more money to do the
science we love! Still, if you recall the , "Better, Faster, Cheaper"
campaign, consider that we ended up with, "Better, Faster, Cheaper;
Fails Too Often". IF we are to do this work, PLEASE give us the tools
we need to do the job right! False-economy half-measures leads to
failure, and to the frustration of all of us.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #1: Should we study astronomy?
JON: "I think we have to recognize our limits, both in spending and in
intelligence. This is obviously something most of us fail to do..."
AMEN! Regarding my personal limits of intelligence, I don't know what
irritates me more: when I can't figure something out no matter how
hard I try, or when I find that something I thought I understood to be
true is dead wrong!
JON: "It is true that without dreams and ambition, the sound barrier
would never have been broken, but I really feel that space travel is
an entirely different matter. The speed of light is in itself a unique
velocity and unlikely to ever be broken."
True! The fact is, our launch capacity is such that we can USUALLY
get payload to low Earth orbit! We are still early in this game!
[Good luck SpaceShipOne / Scaled Composites / Burt Rutan!]
JON: "As far as the solar system is concerned, we continue to study
Mars, but what are we finding other than minerals? Has it been worth
the cost to deposit probes there?"
This may be, Jon, where we may have a friendly "agree to disagree".
I'm reading between the lines on other posts of yours I've read, but
is it accurate of me to say that you don?t disagree with the idea of
exploring Mars? Am I correct in assuming that you think that it just
may be too soon (and not be an appropriate expense)? That is a valid
and understandable position - one worthy of discussion. Personally, I
think we are on the right track here. Let me attempt to make my case.
[This is where I'm likely to get my boss irritated - sorry Kay!
(Again!) Somewhere at NASA.gov I'm sure there is the "official" list
of reasons why we are exploring Mars. I'm just going to share my
thoughts. In other words, I'm going to punt...]
There are a number of reasons why I feel that it is important to
explore Mars, and why I believe that the measured effort that we are
currently putting forth is appropriate.
1) I believe that it is the destiny of Humanity to one day live on
Mars.
I am not (personally) in any hurry to see this occur. Rather, I am
happy to just let it happen when it happens. Someday someone will
find the right combination of reasons and resources to justify the
trip. Sometime in some future there will be Martians, and they will
be us. People will someday live on the Moon and on Mars and mine the
asteroids when it makes sense to do so - when it seems like the right
time.
As harsh as Mars is, it is (by far!) the friendliest place for
humanity in the Solar System.
And, until (if?) we master interstellar flight, Mars is the
friendliest place we are going to see for a VERY long time!
Since the earliest days of humanity, we have always been explorers.
Mars is what is now over the next hill.
2) By studying Mars we learn about the Earth.
Imagine that you wished to learn how to be an auto mechanic. During
your schooling you were trained only on the Ford Galaxy 500 (I'm from
Motown, so I'm going to keep it in the Big Three).
After mechanics school you report to your new job, where your boss
assigns you a GM Hummer to repair. You are most likely lost under the
hood, without any real understanding of what you are looking at.
We are in a similar situation in studying Planet Earth. Our very
survival may depend on understanding global warming and ice ages and
atmospheric dynamics. Up until now the science of planetary geology
has had only one example - Earth. By learning about Mars and Venus we
can better understand the forces that are in play here, at home. The
example I gave above about parachute design shows that we still have a
LOT to learn. There is growing political pressure that we take
extreme (and very expensive!) measures to stop global warming.
Doesn't it make sense to see what Venus (runaway greenhouse gases) and
Mars (planet-wide ice age) can teach us something about what will
happen to the Earth? Right now we have a sample set of just one -
Earth. Isn't it wise to have more than just one sample before we make
vital decisions?
3) By studying Mars we learn about life on Earth.
Again, we have a sample set of just one. Can you imagine the
revolution that will occur in biology if/when we find life on Mars? I
have heard it said that just as computers were the big thing in the
last decade, biology will be the next big thing. Finding life on Mars
(or more likely, evidence of past life) will push biology to the next
level, aiding all of humanity.
JON: "Perhaps Venus would have been a better candidate [than Mars].
Yes, the atmosphere is harsh, but not all that different from the
oceanic environments regularly inhabited by the tiny organisms that
thrive on the products of sea volcanoes and lava."
I agree that Venus is a good candidate for finding life. But, Venus
is not (in my opinion) a good candidate for our current level of
technology. As hard as Mars is (over half of all missions to Mars
have failed), Mars is still easier than Venus by an order of
magnitude.
In a way, Mars is the testing ground for your missions to Venus!
JON: "I think we're going to find that Mars is pretty much dead and
has been for a long time."
But WHY is Mars dead? What happened to turn a place that was once a
pretty nice vacation spot into an Arctic waste?
Besides, to paraphrase a great English philosopher, Mars isn't dead,
he's asleep (or, if you prefer, "Pining for the fiords"). Current
estimates are that there is enough water locked into Martian ice to
cover the planet from pole to pole with a 10 meter deep sea. We see
evidence of massive vulcanism, and current signs of geological
activity. Mars certainly has an active atmosphere. I have to wonder
what we will find swimming around in the Marian hot springs!
JON: "I just question why money continues to be spent to go (to
Mars)."
I think that the study of Mars is an important contribution to our
understanding of Earth. I think that Mars merits the current modest
level of funding, based solely on the merits of what we hope to learn
about our planet and ourselves.
Earlier, Jon, I quoted your statement, "Yes, the atmosphere (of Venus)
is harsh, but not all that different from the OCEANIC ENVIRONMENTS
(emphasis added) regularly inhabited by the tiny organisms that thrive
on the products of sea volcanoes and lava." The ocean vents you are
referring to were discovered by Dr. Ballard, in the submersible Alvin
if I recall. Nobody (including Ballard) expected to find life there.
Yet, it is a TITANIC (pardon the pun) discovery; one that has
revolutionized our understanding of life.
He did not know what he would find there until he went there. What he
found was not ever predicted by anybody.
We can discuss whether we will or will not find such and such, but we
will never KNOW until we go.
"Basic research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
>Wernher von Braun
Nobody asked, but I wish to propose "Foerster's Logical Investigation
of Planetary Research", or FLIPR for short:
a) Steady: At each economical launch window to Mars and Venus, we send
something.
b) Economical: Each mission is modest in scope; designed to work a
basic problem.
c) Flexible: Missions build on what is learned from previous missions.
Instead of the Viking approach of one massive mission followed by 25
years of nothing, we instead produce a steady stream of relevant
science.
I really don't think that we are over-spending on Mars right now.
Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing more. But what NASA is doing right now
is getting the job done.
You'll notice that I agree with you on Venus; I would like to see an
orbiter in service there.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #3: Also, is it just too soon to do space-based astronomy?
> Would it be better to postpone further space-based astronomy missions until
> space technology allows us to do the work more cheaply and reliably?
JON: "Yes, I think so. We aren't ready because we can't even get
along with one another."
Hmmm, we're getting along here, aren't we?
I know of your concerns with the future of society from your other
postings. I largely agree with your view of the scope of the problem.
However, I see the space program as part of the solution!
What is more likely to influence positive behavior in teens - MTV or
astronomy?
I don't, as a rule, like to lean on the idea of space program
spin-offs. I feel that each program should stand on its own merits
for justification. (However, my Grandma asked me to thank NASA for
the tech that saved her life after her recent heart attack). There is
one space science spin-off, however, that made the US what it is
today.
Inspiration.
The Apollo missions inspired millions of college students to pursue
careers in computing and engineering and science (myself included).
Those engineers created the new economy that we enjoy today.
We are no longer enrolling enough students in science and engineering.
While we were able to attract the best minds from around the world to
work here, we were fine. But guess what - the foreign scientists and
engineers are going home. China and India and Singapore and so on
want their people to come back home, and we are going to suffer from a
shortfall of talent.
Too many students are business and law majors. Not enough are science
and engineering majors.
If we don't turn this around, we (the US) will no longer be the
world's leader in science and technology.
China will be.
Is that what we want?
NOTHING inspires the whiz-bang of science like NASA. We NEED people
in science, and I can think of no better way to get folks interested.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #4: Assuming that there is some positive consensus on
> the above questions, are there elements of the space program that we
> can universally agree on as being worthy of public support?
JON: "Basic polling would be the way to find out. Put the questions
on the ballet[*] and let people vote." [*But Jon - nobody goes to the
ballet! (Sorry!)]
I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has done that polling. One of these
days I will figure out who at NASA has those numbers and ask for a
copy.
I started this tread, however, to get a better understanding of what
SAA folks think. I'm using this newsgroup as my off-Broadway prep, to
talk this out with friends if you will, before I go out into the big
bad world.
JON: "Personally, I feel that in our current state, most of what is
being done in space isn't justified, but as I've found out here,
others plainly disagree."
Wow, Jon - MOST of what is being done in space isn't justified?
Now, call me a wimp, but I ain't going to talk about the space station
and the shuttle here. They are topical interests at NASA, and I'm
going to be DAMN sure I have all my facts straight before I get in
trouble.
In terms of money, the shuttle and station are the largest part of
NASA. In terms of missions (and science), however, they are a small
part of what we do.
> I am looking for a foundation of programs that have the support of
> nearly all. For example, I suggest that we can all agree that
> military intelligence, weather forecasting, communications, GPS, and
> Earth-survey (i.e. LANDSAT) missions are agreed to be worthy of
> support.
JON: "All of these share a common ground: they can save lives.
However, would astro studies? Not trying to drop a bomb here again,
but just asking for consideration of the possibility."
(You and I are in perfect agreement on the bomb thang - since when
have we become so sensitive about talking issues amongst friends? If
we can't discuss it here, then where?)
I just attended a seminar on comet disintegration, presented by Dr.
Mike Combi (University of Michigan). Much of his work the use of the
Hubble Space Telescope.
I recently took part in a teleconference presented by Dr. Mike Brown
(CalTech), where he discussed his discovery of Sedna and other Kuiper
Belt Objects (KBOs), using the Hubble.
(Hmm - Mike Brown, Mike Combi, Mike Foerster; we Mikes gotta stick
together!)
Cassini is approaching Saturn. Hubble monitors the side of Saturn
that Cassini can't see, doubling the science.
Does anyone remember when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacted Jupiter? We
followed it with Hubble. (If Comet Shoemaker-Levy had hit Earth it
would have been a VERY bad day!)
HUBBLE IS THE BEST OPTICAL TELESCOPE WE HAVE. It is the most
important scientific instrument ever built. If we lose it, astronomy
is going to take a hit.
Is Hubble a rusty steel can? HELL NO!! Hubble does good science
every day. The best scientists in the world fight for scope time.
Hubble is every scientist's "Plan A". If Hubble time is not
available, then scientists try to make do with something else.
Does it cost too much? Oh, it is expensive. Is it worth it? We can
debate that (I think Hubble is worth it; many good people disagree).
By the way, I never see mentioned the fact that 1/4 of Hubble's cost
was pitched in by the European Space Agency. Proportionally to their
smaller budget, Hubble is a big thing. This is not exclusively NASA
property - much of the world has a stake in the scope, too.
> #4a: Are there other missions you would suggest are also universally
> supported?
JON: "Military intelligence should always be a big one. It wouldn't
hurt to constantly monitor our sun either, which I think is done on a
regular basis."
It appears that the Sun is a mildly variable star. Even a very small
change in solar output can have catastrophic consequences for
humanity. (try Googling "Maunder Minimum", "Little Ice Age", "The
Year with No Summer".) We depend on the Sun for our very lives. We
must understand the Sun better.
The problem with just monitoring the Sun is that we then have a sample
set of just one star. To better understand the Sun, we need to study
other stars. And there is NOTHING better for the job than Hubble.
JON: "Communications is moderately important, but sometimes I think
the world is too depend [sic] on electromagnetic forms of
communication."
Even newsgroups?
Seriously, when is communicating a bad thing? I mean, REAL honest to
goodness two-way exchange of ideas? I think that the internet is a
real tool for democracy around the world.
> #4b: Are there other missions that would, if they were better
> understood, garner universal support?
JON: "Right now, I don't know. I think we should start curtailing our
Mars missions in favor of Venus perhaps, if we're looking for life, or
the moon if we're planning on a base eventually. The ongoing problems
of corruption and diverted funding have damaged much of the one time
flexibility here though."
There is a series of programs that are unheralded in the press, that I
believe to be the most important thing we do in space science. These
are the programs that help us to understand the Big Rock that will hit
us someday. Remember - the reason there are no longer any dinosaurs
is because they didn't have a space program!
I believe that it is absolutely vital that we have a complete,
comprehensive survey of every rock that is out there that could ruin
our day. We need to know where they are and where they are going. We
need to know them inside and out; what they are made of and how they
are put together.
We need to KNOW how to stop one of these monsters from leaving a big,
deep hole on our planet.
Missions like DAWN, Deep Impact, STARDUST, MESSENGER, CONTOUR, the
Deep Space Network, Genesis, Navigator, NEO, SIRTF, Ulysses,
NEAR-Shoemaker, Rosetta, venerable ol' Voyager, and more, are on the
front line of species survival. OUR survival.
Even Hubble does its part.
We gotta do more.
JON: "Thanks for opening the door and allowing me to present my
thoughts in, I hope, a more humane, less defensive, way."
Hey, I am always up for a good debate with a friend! Thanks for
listening to my ramblings.
¤ Clear skies & a star to steer by! >Michael ¤
>*******************************************************<
> Michael Foerster ¤ Pres/Research Lead, Skywatch-GL
> ¤Solar System Ambassador, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
> ¤Night Sky Net Coordinator, The Starry-Nite Society
> ¤E-Address: <Skyw...@insertabovedomain.net>
> ¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
> FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
> "The first duty of a revolutionary is
> to get away with it." >Abby Hoffman
>*******************************************************<
gswork
> >How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
>
> I was motivated to start this thread by recent comments posted by Mr.
> Kickerston, regarding his views on the Hubble Space Telescope and the
> Space Shuttle.
>
> I am not looking for where we disagree, but rather I am hoping that we
> can find elements of the space program whose worth we can all agree
> on. I hope that we can, in this thread, avoid the programs that are
> controversial.
>
> And, can we PLEASE keep this thread focused on discussing science &
> philosophy? No B.S. personal attacks! Let's try to exercise our
> higher brain functions....
>
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #1: Should we study astronomy?
>
> It is rather pointless to discuss the merits of the space program if
> there is no need for humanity to look beyond the Earth's atmosphere.
> So, proponents, why is the study of astronomy worthy of the support of
> humanity?
Yes, the alternative is to accept a fate entirely out of our hands,
e.g. a big meteorite, a heating sun & various others things, not to
say miss out on all the science that also serves us rather well on
earth that has intricate links with astronomy & associated physics.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #2: Should the government be in the business of
> funding astronomy?
>
> I don't sense the desire to debate the value of private support. I
> think that we can all agree that if Paul Allen wishes to use his own
> money to fund the construction of a SETI telescope, that is his own
> business; as is my somewhat more modest contribution to causes I
> favor.
>
> Still, how can government funding for astronomy be justified?
It can't really. no government funding for anything can be really
'justified' in some meaningful absolute sense. Each person born into
a 'standard western' democracy has no choice regarding the comparative
advantages of living in one, therefore owes nothing for unchosen
'services rendered'. Once an adult 'voter' and taxed that person,
unless having voted for and in 100% fully knowledgeable agreement with
the entire legislature and machinery of state, is essentially just
caught up in the inertia of the state, choosing between wholesale
packages on a very narrow menu, with just enough combined influence to
put a ceiling on the amount of corruption and injustice going around.
messy, incomplete and frequently unjust though the best democracy be -
it's so much better than autocracy, and so much more likely than some
kind of groovy anarchy, that it's gonna happen and people will try to
make it work.
in that sense we can accept it and say things like 'research is better
than backhanders to corrupt folk' and go from there!
Without a big 'ol forceful government throwing it's weight around i'm
not sure there'd ever be enough concentration of wealth and effort to
do things like moon missions, or other big pieces of scientific
research either - but then there was plenty of science during the
renaissance when governments were relatively small so i'm not sure on
that.
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #3: Is the value of doing astronomy from space worth
> the cost above and beyond the cost of doing astronomy on the ground?
>
> Given the exponential increase in cost (and the shortened life cycle)
> of doing astronomy in space, why is it worth the effort? Could the
> same science be done more efficiently from the ground?
In money terms maybe, in time terms seemingly not given the leaps and
bounds advances in knowledge following various space missions.
> Also, is it just too soon to do space-based astronomy? Would it be
> better to postpone further space-based astronomy missions until space
> technology allows us to do the work more cheaply and reliably?
They are inter-related. We're better at space tech now because we
learnt much from previous missions. It would be awful long waiting
for spin off's from the hairdryer industry to benefit space travel,
for instance!
> ___________________
> *Basic Question #4: Assuming that there is some positive consensus on
> the above questions, are there elements of the space program that we
> can universally agree on as being worthy of public support?
>
> I am looking for a foundation of programs that have the support of
> nearly all. For example, I suggest that we can all agree that
> military intelligence, weather forecasting, communications, GPS, and
> Earth-survey (i.e. LANDSAT) missions are agreed to be worthy of
> support.
>
> #4a: Are there other missions you would suggest are also universally
> supported?
I think you have it covered with missions related to the health of
humans and to the 'health and safety' of planet earth (NEO tracking,
weather system analysis, etc)
Big projects like a manned mars mission tend to be quite divisive.
> #4b: Are there other missions that would, if they were better
> understood, garner universal support?
Difficult to predict.
personally i consider missions that test and help develop fundamental
physics (e.g. the recent 'gravity mission') to be important, even if
those physicists tend to develop rather miserable 'end of everything'
theories!
Studying the sun too. I also find the close-up study of near-ish
objects (asteroids, comets) interesting and potentially important (1.
to our survival, 2. to our potential benefit as resources)
Missions that test and develop space propulsion & navigation systems
also have a long range benefit. Over the long term it may be that
mankind can benefit from resources in space in terms of energy, 'moon
mines & factories' - whatever. Just hanging around waiting for
technology to arrive seems defeatist when more pro-active research can
be undertaken now.
That said i'd like to see more research, generally, in how to
efficiently use Earthbound resources without messing up the eco-system
too, and see some of it actually implemented on a serious scale!
Starry-Nite
hours ago, and the original seems to be lost in space somewhere.]
"Dr. Michael Martin-Smith" <lagr...@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> wrote...
> Astrobiology is defined as the "Study of the Origins Evolution and
> Distribution of Life in the Universe"- an important area , and IMHO a worthy
> driver for our world Space programmes.
> I believe however that this classical definition is too narrow, focusiing
> as it does on Life's history and neglecting its future.
> I propose a new, wider, definition for Astrobiology as
> "The study of the Origins, Evolution , Distruibution, and Future of Life and
> Mind in an embryonic Universe"
>
> This provides a philosophical rationale not only for our scientific study of
> Space but also our active emergence into the Universe as a constructive and
> creative force.
>
> [snipped some good stuff for length]
>
> On a minor note, many object to space programmes on the grounds that the
> monies spent could feed/clean or otherwise significantly improve our lot on
> Earth
> We can say with apodictic certainty that the diversion of such monies would
> achieve nothing to the good- either it would be diverted and "lost" into
> Government bureaucracies or waste, or it would be given back in some measure
> to the public who would spend it on narcotics, gambling, nicotine,
> pornography or any of the other follies and trivia prevalent among us.
> If we wish to improve the lot of Earth and its poorer denizens, let us scrap
> the above vices and yield over a trillion dollars per year - if after that
> we still needed more funds, it would be a sign of such mindblowing
> ioncompetence that the comparative pittance spent of on space programmes
> would avail us little indeed!
>
> To sum up, I believe we should continue our robotic exploration of the
> Cosmos, and also set up focussed programmes aimed at achieving a
> self-sustainable expansionary extraterrestrial daughter civilization from
> which human growth and evolution as a cosmic species can be assured, even if
> Mother Nature destroys our civilizations here on Earth . This should be a
> phased programme aimed at success within a historiclly useful period of
> time- eg this century
>
> Shakespeare wrote " There is a Tide in the affairs of men which taken at the
> flood , leads on to Fortune..." The tide is now , and waits for no Man.
> Dr Michael Martin-Smith
[Personal Note: Michael, are you the author of, "Man Medicine and
Space"? A good read, sir! Thank you!]
Thank you for your thoughtful response. May I add my comments?
1) I have a simpler definition of "Astrobiology" - which is, "That
which is studied by Astrobiologists".
Would, perhaps, the study of Mind be the realm of a new discipline
called Astropsychology?
2) You state that it is a demonstrable certainty that money diverted
away from space programs would become government waste or spent on
porn. While it seems that some portion of money spent on items other
than space exploration would be used in a less worthy manner, I know
of more than a few people who spent their recent (US) tax refund on
telescopes and such.
Even as a True Believer in the cause, I don't feel that your examples
would persuade very many taxpayers that we can spend their money
better than they.
Rather than, "It is better to spend your money on space research then
to waste it on cigars", I suggest that we convince the public as to
why what we do should be valued by them.
3) I don't have the numbers, but I'm quoting Donna Shirley, the
former Manager of the Mars Exploration Program at JPL. Donna once
told me that we (the US) spends more on doggy treats than we spend on
exploring Mars. Not dog food, mind you. Treats.
It well illustrates where as a nation we place our priorities!
¤ Clear skies & a star to steer by! >Michael ¤
>*******************************************************<
> Michael Foerster ¤ Pres/Research Lead, Skywatch-GL
> ¤Solar System Ambassador, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
> ¤Night Sky Net Coordinator, The Starry-Nite Society
> ¤E-Address: <Skyw...@insertabovedomain.net>
> ¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
> FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
>"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
> Popular Mechanics magazine, forecasting the relentless
> march of science, 1949
>*******************************************************<
Gramma & Gramps
NONE OF IT!!!
The space program is the biggest God-awful waste of money ever! Of
all the stupid things that our government does, those damn rockets
going up and doing nothing are the worst!
I saw on CNN last week that rocket fuel residue has been found in
milk! We are poisening ourselves!
Space Ship 1 burns rubber tires to get into space! There we go again
- another towering plume of filth on our way up!
NOTHING is safer than the manned space missions. And yet, there goes
another shuttle crashing do the Earth with all on board dead.
What if that rocket had been carrying Plutonium? If it had blown up
at launch we would have radioactive plutonium (the most DANGEROUS
toxic ever known!) up and down the Eastern seaboard!
There are THOUSANDS of chunks of space garbage around the Earth. The
CNN says that the Space Station is constantly ringing from the hits of
all that crap we have left up there.
I'm afraid that we are going to trash up and mess up the Heavens just
like we have fouled up our planet. Those yahoos want to go to space
and go to the moon and go to mars and leave our crap everywhere!
We are spending billions and billions and billions and billions and
BILLIONS of dollars on this mess! We can't play games with that much
money - we have got to help people here on Earth.
We have got to take away the expensive toys those way-too-smart rocket
scientists play with, and put them to work doing something that will
help people!
Phil Wheeler
Gramma & Gramps wrote:
> SPAM...@Starry-Nite.net (Starry-Nite) wrote in message news:<cbd6db05.0406...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>>How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
>
>
> NONE OF IT!!!
>
> The space program is the biggest God-awful waste of money ever! Of
> all the stupid things that our government does, those damn rockets
> going up and doing nothing are the worst!
>
> I saw on CNN last week that rocket fuel residue has been found in
> milk! We are poisening ourselves!
>
> Space Ship 1 burns rubber tires to get into space! There we go again
> - another towering plume of filth on our way up!
>
> NOTHING is safer than the manned space missions. And yet, there goes
> another shuttle crashing do the Earth with all on board dead.
>
> What if that rocket had been carrying Plutonium? If it had blown up
> at launch we would have radioactive plutonium (the most DANGEROUS
> toxic ever known!) up and down the Eastern seaboard!
>
Truly and literally a "sky is falling" attitude. Could as well have
been carrying nerve gas.
There are worse threats. Have you noticed how many die in auto accidents
each year. Maybe we should stop driving.
I grew up 60 miles downwind of the Hanford plutonium factory during the
40s and 50s. Many friends and some relatives have developed such as
leukemia from drinking milk laced with Strontium 90 (I was a bad boy and
did not eat my eggs nor drink my milk).
All this without a space program.
Phil
Gramma & Gramps
"CNN: Rocket fuel chemical in California cow milk (06.22.2004)
Infants, young children and pregnant women who drink milk from
California cows may be exposed to unsafe levels of a toxic chemical
used in rocket fuel..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/06/22/milk.chemical.ap/index.html
Oh, yea. That's lovely! That isn't the sound of the sky falling.
It's the sound of us poisening our children! So now when I give my
grandkid a glass of milk, I'm giving her a shot of rocket fuel, too!
> Could as well have been carrying nerve gas.
That's a silly comment, Phil. Have we launched rockets with nerve
gas? No. Have we launched rockets with plutonium? Yes. Is
plutonium deadly? Yes. Do we sometimes have rockets blow up? Yes.
What do we hope to gain from the space science that is worth the
potential of spreading plutonium up and down the east coast? What the
hell is worth the risk?
> There are worse threats. Have you noticed how many die in auto accidents
> each year. Maybe we should stop driving.
The question isn't how many people die or how safe something is. The
question is WHY THE HELL IS ALL THIS SPACE STUFF WORTH BILLIONS OF
WASTED DOLLARS, AND HOW THE HELL DO THEY GET OFF POISENING THE LAND?!
What are we buying for all those truck fulls of money?
> I grew up 60 miles downwind of the Hanford plutonium factory during the
> 40s and 50s. Many friends and some relatives have developed such as
> leukemia from drinking milk laced with Strontium 90 (I was a bad boy and
> did not eat my eggs nor drink my milk).
You are a witness to this, and you can in good conscience permit this
to potentially happen to others?
Should we ask the people who used to live in Chernobyl about the
wonders of science? Do you think that a few of them may wonder if the
electricity was worth the cost.
> All this without a space program.
Yes, Phil, there other stupid science programs out there, and they
have done harm. Did we learn anything?
>How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
!!!NONE OF IT!!!
Phil Wheeler
Gramma & Gramps wrote:
>>Could as well have been carrying nerve gas.
>
>
> That's a silly comment, Phil. Have we launched rockets with nerve
> gas? No. Have we launched rockets with plutonium? Yes.
Please name the ones with Plutonium.
Phil
w6tu...@yahoo.com
Paul Lawler
news:4049d031.04062...@posting.google.com...
> SPAM...@Starry-Nite.net (Starry-Nite) wrote in message
news:<cbd6db05.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > >How Much of the Space Program Deserves Our Support?<
>
> another shuttle crashing do the Earth with all on board dead.
Evidence that "NOTHING" is safer than manned space flight, please? Unless
you have specific evidence to the contrary I can think of several things
that are safer (btw... driving an automobile is not one of them).
> What if that rocket had been carrying Plutonium? If it had blown up
> at launch we would have radioactive plutonium (the most DANGEROUS
> toxic ever known!) up and down the Eastern seaboard!
Evidence that plutonium is the most DANGEROUS toxic ever known, please? Oh,
also evidence that the space shuttles carry plutonium, please?
> There are THOUSANDS of chunks of space garbage around the Earth. The
> CNN says that the Space Station is constantly ringing from the hits of
> all that crap we have left up there.
I think I've found your problem... you're watching too much CNN. <g>
Gramma & Gramps
>
> Phil
Just the US Missions that I could find info on (God only knows what
the other space-countries, or the Pentagon, have put up there):
Transit 4A, 4B, 5-BN-1, 5-BN-2, 5-BN-3, Nimbus-B-1, Nimbus III,
Apollo- 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17, Pioneer 10 & 11, Viking 1 & 2,
LES 8 & 9, Voyager 1 & 2, Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini (from another
source I see the Huygens probe, to Titan, has its own plutonium)
-from Space.com:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/nuclear_space_010625-6.html
Spirit and Opportunity
-from Mars.tv: http://mars.tv/mer/spacecraft.html
Future missions with plutonium: "Europa Orbiter, which will travel to
Jupiter's fourth-largest satellite; Pluto-Kuiper Express, which will
whiz past the farthest planet; and Solar Probe, which will go into an
elongated orbit to study the sun." "The future missions will most
likely be launched by the space shuttle or by updated Delta or Atlas
rockets," (JPL Project Manager) McNamee says.
-From Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004C666-B8B3-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21
Michio Kaku, a physicist at the City University of New York who has
been the most prominent Cassini critic in the scientific community,
says "If Cassini had blown up at launch, it would've been the end of
the space program. We're putting a lot of hope on a firecracker."
(also from Scientific American)
Google is my friend.
>Gramps
Gramma & Gramps
> > another shuttle crashing do the Earth with all on board dead.
>
> Evidence that "NOTHING" is safer than manned space flight, please? Unless
> you have specific evidence to the contrary I can think of several things
> that are safer (btw... driving an automobile is not one of them).
OK - in a flurry of fast fingers I didn't say that clearly enough. Do
you agree that manned space missions tend to have a greater safety
margin and more safety checks, hence leading to a rocket being
"man-rated", meaning that it is safer than a rocket that is not
"man-rated"? Does it then make sense that if we can't keep the
shuttle from crashing and burning, that if we can't keep "man-rated"
spacecraft from blowing up, that rockets that are not "man-rated" are
an even greater risk?
> > What if that rocket had been carrying Plutonium? If it had blown up
> > at launch we would have radioactive plutonium (the most DANGEROUS
> > toxic ever known!) up and down the Eastern seaboard!
>
> Evidence that plutonium is the most DANGEROUS toxic ever known, please?
Oh, crap. I stated what I thought was a well-known fact. Your
comment prompted me to Google "plutonium toxicity", there I found that
I was continuing what is probably an media myth. Looking at the sites
that I think are OK science, I see that there is not one confirmed
death from Pu. I did find that the guy who discoverd Pu named it Pu
because it really stinks. I found that 22 people in the US have been
exposed to Pu, the most toxic substance known, and all lived a good
many years.
"For inhalation, the plutonium can cause death within a month (from
pulmonary fibrosis or pulmonary edema); that requires 20 mg inhaled.
To cause cancer with high probability, the amount that must be inhaled
is 0.08 mg = 80 micrograms. The lethal dose for botulism toxin is
estimated to be about 0.070 micrograms = 70 nanograms. [1] Thus
botulism toxin is over a thousand times more toxic. The statement
that plutonium is the most dangerous material known to man is false.
But it is very dangerous, at least in dust form."
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters2003fall/05b-Pu.htm
Nasty stuff, still!
(I guess you can't trust everything you read. Except in SAA, of
course!)
> Oh, also evidence that the space shuttles carry plutonium, please?
I didn't say that the shuttle carries Pu. In fact, that shuttle ain't
carrying much of anything right now, except a layer of dust.
> > There are THOUSANDS of chunks of space garbage around the Earth. The
> > CNN says that the Space Station is constantly ringing from the hits of
> > all that crap we have left up there.
>
> I think I've found your problem... you're watching too much CNN. <g>
No, I'm reading their web site on sci and tech.
-Gramps
Phil Wheeler
intentionally or otherwise. Where is your evidence of pollution or even
one death from those occurances? For my money the space program is far
less a threat to humankind than plague, AIDS, the automobile, tobacco, etc.
Quoting known and carping critics of the space program to support your
position is hardly convincing.
Google may be your friend but you powers of reasoning are not.
Phil
Gramma & Gramps
> As it happens, several of those have re-entered the atmosphere,
> intentionally or otherwise. Where is your evidence of pollution or even
> one death from those occurances?
My evidence of pollution is the dead carcass of Apollo 13, smashed
into the Indian Ocean.
And how about that Russian Kosmos satellite that crashed into Canada?
If its orbit was different by just a bit would it have crashed into
the US instead? Yes.
It is not my job to prove that it is dangerous. I'm not the guy
spending buku bucks putting plutonium on rockets. It is the job of
NASA to prove that it is safe.
And as long as rockets blow up it is not safe.
One of these days one of your pretty rockets is going to leave a
crater on the launch pad, and Pu is going to waft over thousands of
homes. (I guess that your house isn't downwind, Phil - is this OK as
long as it's not in your backyard?)
>For my money the space program is far
> less a threat to humankind than plague, AIDS, the automobile, tobacco, etc.
The difference is that we do not pay BILLIONS of dollars supporting
the plague.
Why is my money being spent on this pork? Why is the risk worth the
cost?
> Google may be your friend but you powers of reasoning are not.
My powers of reasoning are fine. You powers of typing ain't.
> Quoting known and carping critics of the space program to support your
> position is hardly convincing.
You a physicist, Phil? Rocket scientist? Nuclear technician?
Me neither.
Since YOU don't have first-hand knowledge and I don't have first-hand
knowledge then where are we supposed to go to figure this out?
We go to the people that we think have a clue.
I didn't check the Sierra-huggers or the ACLU or the Enquirer. I
looked at places that have a reputation for being mostly reasonable,
like CNN and Scientific American.
Since Google is my friend-
-"Michio Kaku is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College
of the City University of New York."
-"Dr. Michio Kaku is an internationally recognized authority in
theoretical physics."
-"Physicist Michio Kaku expounds on the future of computers, Dr. Kaku
has done groundbreaking work on string theory and multiple
dimensions."
-Someone in this group just suggested that the Cosmos Show be redone,
and Kaku was one of the two guys mentioned for the job.
Gosh! He is pretty smart, he is pretty involved and he has a pretty
good rep.
No wonder you don't like him.
So instead of complaining that you don't like what I say, can you back
that up, Phil? I have taken a look at this. All you are saying is
that "It must be OK".
Sure Phil. Your assurances make me feel so much safer!
"It must be OK" ain't good enough when that cloud of plutonium dust is
dropping on my roof.
~Gramps
Phil Wheeler
Gramma & Gramps wrote:
> Phil Wheeler <w6tu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<QiBDc.3372$ju5....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>
>>As it happens, several of those have re-entered the atmosphere,
>>intentionally or otherwise. Where is your evidence of pollution or even
>>one death from those occurances?
>
>
> My evidence of pollution is the dead carcass of Apollo 13, smashed
> into the Indian Ocean.
>
No that is not evidence of pollution. That would be a potential cause.
Were there identifiable effects? Some data, please.
Now we know automobiles cause pollution. So I assume you have stopped
driving to counter that *proven* source of pollution. No? I thought not.
Phil
Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast
Gramps) wrote:
---
Massive editing to remove a bunch of nonsense.
---
>Sure Phil. Your assurances make me feel so much safer!
>
>"It must be OK" ain't good enough when that cloud of plutonium dust is
>dropping on my roof.
>
>~Gramps
Is that Gramps or Cramps....sounds like you've got the cramps. Go
take a "load" off.....you'll feel less bloated and less in need of
pooping out the mouth...or...keyboard. And next time, vote
Republican, it'll make you feel better for the long haul by supporting
a winner.
Tetherhorne P. Flutterblast (In your heart, you know I'm right)
Jmpngtiger
in 2005 (depending on who you believe), and continue for ten years. The economy
as we know it will be forever changed. Anything else pales in comparison.
jt