America used to give a damn redux

[orogenicman]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Benefits of the NASA Space Program

The US Space Program Benefits

 

[orogenicman]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

Spend some time reading...

NASA - Space Program Benefits NASA s Positive Impact on Society

No links please. Spend some time writing. I asked three simple questions. Answer or don't.

I can see why you don't spend a lot of time reading about space exploration. So I hope you can understand why we don't do your homework for you.

 

[orogenicman]

I might add that the planned SLS, which should launch by 2018, will give us the much needed heavy lift capabilities. What's more, it will be able to add to our solar system unmanned exploration capabilities, by allowing us to launch much heavier probes to destinations such as Europa and Mars with sample return missions. These two missions are in the planning stage, and will utilize the capabilities of the SLS. These missions will demonstrate technologies that will ultimately get a manned vehicle onto the surface of Mars and back.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes. New tech does not simply happen. It is discovered when we face a challenge and meet it.
NASA spin-off technologies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Were these "tech" discoveries a direct result of space travel and exploration or were these advances discovered here on earth?

Virtually all of them are going to be creations here on earth in order to overcome the obstacles of entering space.

That is the point - humanity NEEDS obstacles to overcome and innovate from. It is the challenge that drives the innovation. You know there were a LOT of people that said the same thing to Christopher Columbus - why explore when we are doing just fine. I, for one, hope to see humanity go beyond this little rock one day and that certainly is not going to happen over night. It is going to take an awful lot of research and resources but the bounties of space are far more than we have here. There is only so much resource and space here - there is virtually an infinite amount of resources if we just have the tenacity and balls to go get them.

Christopher Columbus explored here on earth for the benefit of folks living on earth. I'm trying to see the benefits of "leaving this little rock" for some distant, unknown planet. Why do that when this little rock has everything necessary for human life? So we spend quadrillions of dollars to send someone to another planet. Then what? Just move there and survive just to say that we can?

Are you really THAT obtuse?

USA Today recently offered a list of the “Top 25 Scientific Breakthroughs” that have occurred in its 25 years, and nine of them came from space, eight directly from NASA. In a speech kicking off NASA’s 50th anniversary year, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said:

“We see the transformative effects of the Space Economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the Space Economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart….We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.”

Technology transfer has been a mandate for NASA since the agency was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. The act requires that NASA provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and results. It also provides NASA with the authority to patent inventions to which it has title. The term “spinoff” was invented to describe specific technologies developed by NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some other beneficial application. Thus far, NASA has documented more than 1,500 spinoff success stories.

Okay. So you finally mentioned a benefit: Satellites! (The materials of which were drawn from earth and made on earth). What are some benefit of sending men to Mars? What were some benefits of having men plant American flags on the moon?

The spin offs of the Apollo program are well documented. No one needs to elucidate them here. I suggest you research that question if you are truly interested. As to your other question, the answer is that we don't fully know. One never knows where pure science and/or scientific exploration and discovery will lead. How could Alexander Graham Bell know that his invention of the telephone would ultimately lead to global communications? He couldn't, but that's what happened.

 

[BluesLegend]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

 

[Bfgrn]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Debt is measured in ratio to GDP. You can take the regressive right wing approach of austerity, or the progressive approach of innovation, jobs and growing the GDP.

The right wing approach was tried in the late 20's early 30's. It turned a recession into the Great Depression.

If you believe in that approach, you probably believe Medieval blood letting saves lives...

 

[orogenicman]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Yes I have heard of return on investment. Have you? You really should research this issue wrt to NASA projects. In contrast, what was our return on investment on the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Was there any? At all?

 

[candycorn]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

• If you value being able to skype your son or daughter serving in Korea or Kuwait, you should thank the space program.
• If you value the turn-by-turn in your car, you should thank the space program.
• If you like to know that the dark clouds out in the ocean are a deadly hurricane and that you (and the rest of Miami) should seek higher ground, you should thank the space program.
• If you like being able to see where Saddam had his artillery or if you think Kimmel would have benefited from seeing the Japanse fleet on December 5 or 6 in aut '41; you should thank the space program.
• Costs? Costs to whom? Skype is almost dirt cheap....overseas calls are not much more expensive. These are because of the democratization of space technologies.

You ask interesting questions about the value versus the costs. I would think the costs would have likely balanced out by now between all of the cheap calls, free reads of distant newspapers, e-mail messages that would have required a long distance phone call or stamps in the past etc. Costs are one thing.

Value is something else. How much do you value the ability to do all of these things and the safety of the troops, persons in Miami, being able to schedule the picnic with your daughter on Sunday instead of Saturday because you know it's going to rain on Saturday and not Sunday, showing up to the meeting or party on time with the turn by turn......value is for you to decide.

 

[BluesLegend]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Debt is measured in ratio to GDP. You can take the regressive right wing approach of austerity, or the progressive approach of innovation, jobs and growing the GDP.

The right wing approach was tried in the late 20's early 30's. It turned a recession into the Great Depression.

If you believe in that approach, you probably believe Medieval blood letting saves lives...

Ah, you do realize just the interest on the national debt would fund all the progressive liberal wet dream programs right. (rolls eyes)

 

[BluesLegend]

I can think of $18 trillion reasons why we can't afford NASA and lots of other nice to haves. Maybe if the deadbeats in this country got off their welfare asses and worked we could pay off the debt and invest in stuff like this.

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Yes I have heard of return on investment. Have you? You really should research this issue wrt to NASA projects. In contrast, what was our return on investment on the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Was there any? At all?

Good lord, look I can't talk to another idiot this morning have a good day.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Bush Administration
The $3 Trillion War
After wildly lowballing the cost of the Iraq conflict at a mere $50 to $60 billion, the Bush administration has been concealing the full economic toll. The spending on military operations is merely the tip of a vast fiscal iceberg. In an excerpt from their new book, the authors calculate the grim bottom line.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes

Illustration by Edward Sorel.


On March 19, 2008, the U.S. will have been in Iraq for five years. The Bush administration was wrong about the need for the Iraq war and about the benefits the war would bring to Iraq, to the region, and to America. It has also been wrong about the full cost of the war, and it continues to take steps to conceal that cost.

In the run-up to the war there were few public discussions of the likely price tag. When Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush’s economic adviser, suggested that it might reach $200 billion all told, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the estimate as “baloney.” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz went as far as to suggest that Iraq’s postwar reconstruction would pay for itself through increased oil revenues. Rumsfeld and Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated the total cost of the war in the range of $50 to $60 billion, some of which they believed would be financed by other countries.

For fiscal year 2008 the administration has asked for nearly $200 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Congress provides the money, as it almost certainly will, then the total appropriated for direct operations in these two countries (including reconstruction, embassy costs, enhanced base security, and foreign aid) since the wars began will come to roughly $800 billion. It is extremely difficult to disentangle the Iraq and Afghanistan numbers, but Iraq is by far the larger endeavor and accounts for about three-fourths of the total. By the administration’s own reckoning, then, the cost of the Iraq war, counting only the money officially appropriated, will soon be some $600 billion, or more than 10 times Rumsfeld’s original number.

The administration’s estimates have been low—and wrong—from the start. Some of this is the result of its shortsightedness about every aspect of the war, beginning with its nature and duration. For instance, extensive use of reservists and the National Guard avoided the need to increase the size of the armed forces or resort to a draft—but at a heavy price, including reliance on highly paid contractors, people who in other contexts would have been called mercenaries. Another factor is the soaring price of fuel caused by the increase in the price of oil—which is itself, in part, a consequence of the war.

But even the $600 billion number is disingenuous—which is to say false. The true cost of the war in Iraq, according to our calculations, will, by the time America has extricated itself, exceed $3 trillion. And this is a deliberately conservative estimate. The ultimate cost may well be much higher.

 

[orogenicman]

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Yes I have heard of return on investment. Have you? You really should research this issue wrt to NASA projects. In contrast, what was our return on investment on the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Was there any? At all?

Good lord, look I can't talk to another idiot this morning have a good day.

I'll take that to mean that you aren't coming back to the thread. Best decision you made today. Congratulations.

 

[Bfgrn]

Then you are very short sighted.

Investment pays off in the long run and NASA is an excellent place to invest.

I can think of dozens of things to cut back in long before we get anywhere near NASA.

HELLO...after 50 years of funding NASA we are $18 freaking trillion dollars in debt. If we start paying off $100 billion a year today it will only take us 180 years to pay off the debt HELLO earth to the math challenged.

You don't cancel your most advance science programs (the ones that provide high paying jobs) that spur more economic activities in order to pay off debts. That is not only short-sighted, it's just plain dumb. We have a military that is leaps and bounds more than we need or can afford. And you don't pay off the national debt by defunding game changing research and development. You pay off the national debt by encouraging such job creating activities. Ultimately, it is putting Americans back to work that will pay off the debt.

You won't have any advanced science programs period if you don't stop borrowing trillions of dollars, for fucks sake. Return on investment heard of it? HELLO $18 trillion in debt and still climbing. HELLO gawd is like talking to a rock.

Debt is measured in ratio to GDP. You can take the regressive right wing approach of austerity, or the progressive approach of innovation, jobs and growing the GDP.

The right wing approach was tried in the late 20's early 30's. It turned a recession into the Great Depression.

If you believe in that approach, you probably believe Medieval blood letting saves lives...

Ah, you do realize just the interest on the national debt would fund all the progressive liberal wet dream programs right. (rolls eyes)

Where did our debt come from?

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy? Was it New Deal Democrats? No....they PAYED for what they spent. It all started with the 'welfare queen' mentality of Ronny Reagan who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

 

[DriftingSand]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

• If you value being able to skype your son or daughter serving in Korea or Kuwait, you should thank the space program.
• If you value the turn-by-turn in your car, you should thank the space program.
• If you like to know that the dark clouds out in the ocean are a deadly hurricane and that you (and the rest of Miami) should seek higher ground, you should thank the space program.
• If you like being able to see where Saddam had his artillery or if you think Kimmel would have benefited from seeing the Japanse fleet on December 5 or 6 in aut '41; you should thank the space program.
• Costs? Costs to whom? Skype is almost dirt cheap....overseas calls are not much more expensive. These are because of the democratization of space technologies.

You ask interesting questions about the value versus the costs. I would think the costs would have likely balanced out by now between all of the cheap calls, free reads of distant newspapers, e-mail messages that would have required a long distance phone call or stamps in the past etc. Costs are one thing.

Value is something else. How much do you value the ability to do all of these things and the safety of the troops, persons in Miami, being able to schedule the picnic with your daughter on Sunday instead of Saturday because you know it's going to rain on Saturday and not Sunday, showing up to the meeting or party on time with the turn by turn......value is for you to decide.

That's a decent reply. Thanks for at least answering my questions in an intelligent and civil manner.

I agree that satellite technology is very valuable and beneficial. I do hope that it is never used for detrimental purposes, however (warfare, spying, etc.). Most satellite technology was created on earth then launched into space for the direct benefit of folks living on earth. If and when the space program is used for those purposes then I'm all for funding such projects. However, I'm still not certain that landing on the moon or Mars will have significant benefits nor do I believe that sending probes to Pluto will justify the costs but, who knows.

My main concern is that money spent on the space program could be used in a more beneficial way if directed towards serious problems here on earth. Decaying/deteriorating bridges and highways. Border security. Medical technology. Etc. Also, the American taxpayer is carrying a pretty heavy load and the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. I make a little more money than I did in the 80s but am able to buy far less.

 

[Kondor3]

For many laymen (myself included), it is disappointing in the extreme to see the US reduced to now fielding Apollo Capsules On Steroids, after decades of the far more spacious and flexible shuttles that once graced low earth orbit, bearing our colors.

I understand that the shuttle was not a deep space exploration vehicle, and that it was not suited for anything beyond our own neighborhood, but I had not expected to see us taking the poor-boy route and clapping together an updated rehash of old ideas from the mid-20th.

Well, at least we're almost to the point where we don't have to go begging hat-in-hand to the Russians for a ride into near-space, but crawling back out of a pre-Mercury-Project state (unable to put a man into space on our own) and serving-up Apollo On Steroids isn't exactly my idea of progress.

I understand that 'they' have sugar-plum visions of using the Orion (Apollo-rehash/update/extension) for a Mars mission, sometime between now and the 10th of never, but we can do (and should be doing) better, in fashioning a vehicle system for our first interplanetary sorties.

Orion? Yeah. It gets us back into space, I guess, but, it's a frigging capsule... old idea... settling for far less than we're capable of... bore, bore, bore.

IMHO.

The shuttle was never designed to travel into deep space. That's why it was called a shuttle. It was, from the outset, a LEO spacecraft. I could never have been used for deep space even if you wanted to. If you want to travel to deep space, you need something else. Orion is that something else. It may have the appearance of the Apollo capsule (that is primarily a design necessity to get our crew back to earth safely), but that is where the similarities stop. By itself, Orion can keep a crew of four in space for three weeks. Add a habitation module (which is the plan), and it can stay up there for far longer. That is something Apollo could never do. The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17, at just over twelve days.

Yes. I understand that the Shuttle was not intended for anything beyond earth orbit (see that very concession in my original text).

And, yes, I understand that it is a ne generation of 'capsule' - which is why I stylized it as Apollo-on-Steroids.

And, yes, I understand that it is capable of extended missions, given the right 'habitation' module and accompanying air, water, food, fuel and power supplies.

I'm sure the capsule is largely new in design, while retaining the systems (and their successors) that worked in the past, and can continue to work well in this current generation.

Hell, I'm sure that it's an absolutely bitchin' capsule... the best capsule extant on the face of the planet.

But here's the thing.

It's a frigging capsule.

We went from capsule to space-plane, then back to capsule again.

Two steps forward, one step back.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

• If you value being able to skype your son or daughter serving in Korea or Kuwait, you should thank the space program.
• If you value the turn-by-turn in your car, you should thank the space program.
• If you like to know that the dark clouds out in the ocean are a deadly hurricane and that you (and the rest of Miami) should seek higher ground, you should thank the space program.
• If you like being able to see where Saddam had his artillery or if you think Kimmel would have benefited from seeing the Japanse fleet on December 5 or 6 in aut '41; you should thank the space program.
• Costs? Costs to whom? Skype is almost dirt cheap....overseas calls are not much more expensive. These are because of the democratization of space technologies.

You ask interesting questions about the value versus the costs. I would think the costs would have likely balanced out by now between all of the cheap calls, free reads of distant newspapers, e-mail messages that would have required a long distance phone call or stamps in the past etc. Costs are one thing.

Value is something else. How much do you value the ability to do all of these things and the safety of the troops, persons in Miami, being able to schedule the picnic with your daughter on Sunday instead of Saturday because you know it's going to rain on Saturday and not Sunday, showing up to the meeting or party on time with the turn by turn......value is for you to decide.

That's a decent reply. Thanks for at least answering my questions in an intelligent and civil manner.

I agree that satellite technology is very valuable and beneficial. I do hope that it is never used for detrimental purposes, however (warfare, spying, etc.). Most satellite technology was created on earth then launched into space for the direct benefit of folks living on earth. If and when the space program is used for those purposes then I'm all for funding such projects. However, I'm still not certain that landing on the moon or Mars will have significant benefits nor do I believe that sending probes to Pluto will justify the costs but, who knows.

My main concern is that money spent on the space program could be used in a more beneficial way if directed towards serious problems here on earth. Decaying/deteriorating bridges and highways. Border security. Medical technology. Etc. Also, the American taxpayer is carrying a pretty heavy load and the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. I make a little more money than I did in the 80s but am able to buy far less.

It's a real problem for science when political hacks get involved and make it an economic benefit issue. There are plenty of economic benefits to the space program, make no mistake. But pure science is not primarily about returns on investments, and never has been. We don't know in advance what scientific discovery will bring. Or even if it will bring returns. If that is the primary goal, then it is misplaced.

 

[orogenicman]

For many laymen (myself included), it is disappointing in the extreme to see the US reduced to now fielding Apollo Capsules On Steroids, after decades of the far more spacious and flexible shuttles that once graced low earth orbit, bearing our colors.

I understand that the shuttle was not a deep space exploration vehicle, and that it was not suited for anything beyond our own neighborhood, but I had not expected to see us taking the poor-boy route and clapping together an updated rehash of old ideas from the mid-20th.

Well, at least we're almost to the point where we don't have to go begging hat-in-hand to the Russians for a ride into near-space, but crawling back out of a pre-Mercury-Project state (unable to put a man into space on our own) and serving-up Apollo On Steroids isn't exactly my idea of progress.

I understand that 'they' have sugar-plum visions of using the Orion (Apollo-rehash/update/extension) for a Mars mission, sometime between now and the 10th of never, but we can do (and should be doing) better, in fashioning a vehicle system for our first interplanetary sorties.

Orion? Yeah. It gets us back into space, I guess, but, it's a frigging capsule... old idea... settling for far less than we're capable of... bore, bore, bore.

IMHO.

The shuttle was never designed to travel into deep space. That's why it was called a shuttle. It was, from the outset, a LEO spacecraft. I could never have been used for deep space even if you wanted to. If you want to travel to deep space, you need something else. Orion is that something else. It may have the appearance of the Apollo capsule (that is primarily a design necessity to get our crew back to earth safely), but that is where the similarities stop. By itself, Orion can keep a crew of four in space for three weeks. Add a habitation module (which is the plan), and it can stay up there for far longer. That is something Apollo could never do. The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17, at just over twelve days.

Yes. I understand that the Shuttle was not intended for anything beyond earth orbit (see that very concession in my original text).

And, yes, I understand that it is a ne generation of 'capsule' - which is why I stylized it as Apollo-on-Steroids.

And, yes, I understand that it is capable of extended missions, given the right 'habitation' module and accompanying air, water, food, fuel and power supplies.

I'm sure the capsule is largely new in design, while retaining the systems (and their successors) that worked in the past, and can continue to work well in this current generation.

Hell, I'm sure that it's an absolutely bitchin' capsule... the best capsule extant on the face of the planet.

But here's the thing.

It's a frigging capsule.

We went from capsule to space-plane, then back to capsule again.

Two steps forward, one step back.

So what? You don't want or need all the weight of a space plane to go to Mars. The Apollo capsule worked very well (It was the command module that had problems in Apollo 13). The Russians have used the Soyuz capsule since the 1960s with major upgrades. And they have remained in space all that time. You don't fix it if it ain't broke. I don't know what you expected, but the Orion will be, as you say, a "bitchin" capsule. It is economical (compared to the shuttle), very advanced in its technology, and what's more, it will do exactly what we need it to do - get us to deep space and back. And it is reusable. What more do you want?

 

[candycorn]

I don't spend a lot of time reading about or studying space exploration. Can someone list the truly significant or far-reaching benefits of space exploration? Has the overall cost over the years reaped equivalent (or greater) rewards? If the costs vastly outweigh those rewards is there truly any value in the various, ongoing programs?

• If you value being able to skype your son or daughter serving in Korea or Kuwait, you should thank the space program.
• If you value the turn-by-turn in your car, you should thank the space program.
• If you like to know that the dark clouds out in the ocean are a deadly hurricane and that you (and the rest of Miami) should seek higher ground, you should thank the space program.
• If you like being able to see where Saddam had his artillery or if you think Kimmel would have benefited from seeing the Japanse fleet on December 5 or 6 in aut '41; you should thank the space program.
• Costs? Costs to whom? Skype is almost dirt cheap....overseas calls are not much more expensive. These are because of the democratization of space technologies.

You ask interesting questions about the value versus the costs. I would think the costs would have likely balanced out by now between all of the cheap calls, free reads of distant newspapers, e-mail messages that would have required a long distance phone call or stamps in the past etc. Costs are one thing.

Value is something else. How much do you value the ability to do all of these things and the safety of the troops, persons in Miami, being able to schedule the picnic with your daughter on Sunday instead of Saturday because you know it's going to rain on Saturday and not Sunday, showing up to the meeting or party on time with the turn by turn......value is for you to decide.

That's a decent reply. Thanks for at least answering my questions in an intelligent and civil manner.

I agree that satellite technology is very valuable and beneficial. I do hope that it is never used for detrimental purposes, however (warfare, spying, etc.). Most satellite technology was created on earth then launched into space for the direct benefit of folks living on earth. If and when the space program is used for those purposes then I'm all for funding such projects. However, I'm still not certain that landing on the moon or Mars will have significant benefits nor do I believe that sending probes to Pluto will justify the costs but, who knows.

My main concern is that money spent on the space program could be used in a more beneficial way if directed towards serious problems here on earth. Decaying/deteriorating bridges and highways. Border security. Medical technology. Etc.

If That is the barometer, we would never do anything as a society. We've had decaying streets and bridges since we had streets and bridges. We could always spend the money on the challenges in front of us. Would you not send your daughter to college because you need to update your vehicle? Obviously one is an investment in what is in front of you and one is an investment in the possibility.

I think the conclusion that one is preferable to the other is one of preference and not rooted in any high level cost-benefit analysis.

Also, the American taxpayer is carrying a pretty heavy load and the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. I make a little more money than I did in the 80s but am able to buy far less.

This is the price we pay for having competing national interests across the planet.

 

[Londoner]

One of the most interesting things about NASA and the Defense Department is the technology that came out of these insitutions - technology that required the insanely deep pockets and administrative reach of big government. [This is why Eisenhower is to be respected, because he was part of a great generation of men who forced government to do great things.]

Consider the technology required to put a man on the moon, or the technology required to create a heat seeking missile.

Consider that Boeing was a fully government subsidized company (mostly through Defense contracts). [Do Republicans understand of aerospace technology literally came out of the Defense Sector, and that all the capitalists making money from this industry are standing on the shoulders of government?]

Or what about computer and internet technology, all of which received massive funding through the Defense and NASA budgets. [Seriously, try explaining this to a Republican and you will get a blank stare. They literally do not understand the technology required to put a man on the moon or run the largest, most sophisticated, most technology advanced military in human history]

The American Taxpayer helped create the most life-enhancing and profitable technology that this world has ever known, but FOX News covers it up so that those very profits can be privatized by the lilliputians standing on the public's shoulders.

 

[Bfgrn]

What breakthroughs in medicine came from NASA?

Most Americans don't go a week -- maybe not even a day -- without encountering something that owes at least part of its origins to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). That's true in the home medicine cabinet, the doctor's office and the hospital.

Some medical breakthroughs are the result of NASA's partnerships with other researchers. Some came because NASA scientists saw other applications for discoveries they made or technologies they developed while keeping spacecraft flying and astronauts healthy. NASA reports the commercial use of its inventions in its annual "Spinoff" reports.

Sometimes NASA didn't invent the breakthrough, but rather the technologies that led to the breakthrough or improved on them. For instance, NASA didn't invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), but NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory developed digital image processing to enhance pictures of the moon. That contributed to MRIs and CT or CAT Scans (also known as computerized tomography).

Another example is the development of the LVAD (Left Ventricular Assist Device) in 1995. Engineers at the Johnson Space Center in Houston worked with Dr. Michael DeBakey to develop this artificial heart pump based on the space shuttle's fuel pumps. It helps keep people healthy as they wait for heart transplants -- and sometimes makes a transplant unnecessary.

More recently, NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program at the Marshall Space Flight Center sponsored successful clinical trials on medical uses of a light technology that was originally developed for plant experiments on space shuttles. A Wisconsin company and a research center sponsored by NASA at the University of Wisconsin at Madison figured out how to use the light technology to reduce the painful side effects of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in cancer patients who have bone marrow or stem cell transplants. Over the years, NASA can claim at least partial credit for a wide variety of medical innovations, from ear thermometers and automatic insulin pumps to implantable heart defibrillators and improvements in digital mammography technology.

Here are a few of the many other medical advances that came at least in part from NASA:

• Digital imaging breast biopsy system, developed from Hubble Space Telescope technology
• Tiny transmitters to monitor the fetus inside the womb
• Laser angioplasty, using fiber-optic catheters
• Forceps with fiber optics that let doctors measure the pressure applied to a baby's head during delivery
• Cool suit to lower body temperature in treatment of various conditions
• Voice-controlled wheelchairs
• Light-emitting diodes (LED) for help in brain cancer surgery
• Foam used to insulate space shuttle external tanks for less expensive, better molds for artificial arms and legs
• Programmable pacemakers
• Tools for cataract surgery

Lots More Information
Related Articles

• 5 Types of NASA Technology in Your Attic
• How has NASA improved athletic training?
• How have NASA space helmets changed optics?
• How has NASA helped improve our air and water?
• What NASA technology helps keep you warm?
• 5 Green NASA Inventions