[Archive] Neil DeGrasse Tyson has it right, spread the word

drakkzharr:

Great sound and fury yet signifying nothing

JonJon
Not sure what You meant by that?

JonJon:

That your friends professor said nothing at all

zobo1942:

I think it was misquoted/paraphrased Macbeth.

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

… but as to what it was supposed to mean I have no idea, either.

Willmark:

It has nothing to do with "how good you have it". That's not my point at all.

My point is we are artificially hamstringing the one government entity that actually is a good use of tax dollars that produces directly or indirectly industry, technology and dare I say as NDT points out to dream.

My daughter loves NASA we read up on the rovers on Mars. My son was saddened when Spirit "went to sleep". My daughter asks how come the shuttles aren't flying any more, how come NASA isn't what it used to be. I struggle to tell get that it's because of a systematic failure of congressional and presidential leadership to take that which is best in us and stymie it. Instead it's easier to pander to "how come we are spending 400 million on a space probe" no nothings as of that's a significant amount of money on a federal scale.

Sorry about the soap box folks but this topic has bothered me for years. It took NDT to put it together far more eloquently then I could ever hope to do.

Willmark
I wasn't really talking to you,but the simple answer to your daughters question would be ,the shuttle was dead tech when they made it,,just a bit of pr for the masses and we will go to mars when they solve the gravity problem ( floating frog) man space flight has stopped because of the maasive loss of bone mass due to prolonged exposure to zero gravity. After all who wants to go to Mars if your bones want support you when you get back to earth. That's the answer you should tell your children
I think I've got a handle on what to tell the kids, thanks ;)

Yes and who knows what technology might be developed by tacklingg such a problem. I can tell what tech will be produced by not going: very little if any. We could have gone to Mars or even done X but politicians took the easy way out (see below).

It's not about "dead end tech", it's about doing something that might led to the next discovery. And if it is about dead end tech lets create some new stuff.

That said I don't think you're right on this. The federal government cuts NASA because it's an easy thing to do and as Thommy points out the average mouth breather can't fathom it's benefits. So in a way it's a chicken "ship" way of the government to say to their constituents "hey look we are cutting government spending", while simultaneously handing out massive $ to businesses.

JonJon:

I think I’ve got a handle on what to tell the kids, thanks :wink:

You said you were struggling

Yes and who knows what technology might be developed by tacklingg such a problem. I can tell what tech will be produced by not going: very little if any. We could have gone to Mars or even done X but politicians took the easy way out (see below).The problem is being worked on and the money to this project wasn’t cut

It’s not about “dead end tech”, it’s about doing something that might led to the next discovery. And if it is about dead end tech lets create some new stuff. They are creating new stuff ,joe civilian hasn’t been told about it

That said I don’t think you’re right on this. The federal government cuts NASA because it’s an easy thing to do and as Thommy points out the average mouth breather can’t fathom it’s benefits. So in a way it’s a chicken “ship” way of the government to say to their constituents “hey look we are cutting government spending”, while simultaneously handing out massive $ to businesses.

Willmark:

I threw that in as a joke. The kids are pretty smart.

In terms of budget? Sure has. Peak was 1966 and was 4.41% now it’s down around .48%. Adjusted to relative dollars that’s going from 32,106 million in 2007 constant dollars to 17,138 based on the latest year available 2008. That’s my point.

That’s NDT point, it’s not that there isn’t enough money, rather what are we spending it on? Of course it could be argued that the whole thing is out of whack because the federal budget has ballooned out of control and keeping with the sites guidelines I’d like to avoid.

Anyways this is getting in the weeds. Point being is NDT is saying double it. Make it close to 1 penny on the dollar. To me thats small price to pay.

EDIT: I should also add, not a huge fan of wiki check the NASA budget page it has a ton of great links to parts of this topic to all corners of the web.

JonJon:

In 1966 it became obvious to everyone ,we didn’t have the shielding to protect from radiation or the ability to generate gravity to protect are astronaughts from bone mass problem in prolonged space travel, but about 2 years ago they produced a gravity field ( floating frog) that might have solved the bone problem,and the new body armor that the military has been working on MIGHT solve theradiationproblem. But both of these problems have to be solved first before its feasible ,that’s the hold up and I’m sure the prez knows his

JonJon:

Btw I agree about the penny thing but I don’t want money spent on the shuttle that should be going to something else,

Nothing but love

Jon

Willmark:

Oh no doubt the shuttle needed to be retired its just pathetic that instead of a 5-10 year hold on manned spaced flight we could have been onto the next system.

Mixed feelings about the cancelation of Project Constellation.

JonJon:

Not with astronaughts that could walk on the planet when they got there

khedyarl:

Jonjon, I have absolutely no idea where you are getting your information from, but the reason we aren’t sending manned missions to Mars, or Vesta, isn’t because low-gravity causes massive loss of bone mass. That is certainly a lemma in response to space flight, but it is not a factor stopping flight missions (for those of you unfamiliar: astronauts lose roughly 1 percent of their bone mass in their lower body per month of time spent in zero gravity. The lower gravity of a place like Mars, or the Moon hasn’t fully fully tested. In addition: They are pretty sure that it is the low gravity causing the problem, but there has been no official confirmation yet. There are a few universities researching the problem right now). There are many little things, ranging from the problems Martian dust create, to bone mass, to extended fuel weight (which has now been solved by the Dawn Spacecraft). None of these problems mean a thing, however, when they aren’t given enough money to actually build a craft capable of housing people for an extended trip, and actually launch. To suggest otherwise displays a distinct lack or knowledge, or willing ignorance of how the system actually works.

Simply put, there is very little money to be made in space, for those that pioneer the opportunities. We can create manned missions to mine asteroids for billions of pounds of gold and diamonds, but the monetary cost (between research and production) is almost unimaginably high, when we can get the same minerals and resources from developing countries for a fraction of a fraction that cost. It’s unfortunate, but unless a government can see a tangible, liquid benefit for putting their money into a project, we’re unlikely to see much money for said project. And ultimately, NASA and corresponding organisations in other governments don’t generate revenue.

Finally, the excitement, whimsy, and hope that followed the manned missions to space simply isn’t there from the public anymore, either. Initially, the American public hugely supported NASA, everyone watched rocket launch, the moon landing, et cetera. Gradually that support eroded, and the public just doesn’t appear (for whatever reason) to really care. This may actually be the final nail in NASA’s coffin.

Thommy H:

I totally agree with everything you just said, khedyral, except that it’s an enduring myth that the early space missions and especially the moon landing captured the imagination of the general public. Lots of people, just like today, felt it was a money sink and a huge waste of time. There was just political will to make it all happen, which now there isn’t for a variety of reasons, many of which have already been cited in this thread.

JonJon:

khedyarl:

It doesn’t take one year to get to Mars, Jonjon. Look up ion-drive technology. We have the knowledge to make the trip much shorter - we are lacking the funding. You seem to be stuck with the idea that we have to use a shuttle to get into space. There are many options beyond Dawn that haven’t been tested yet. And that’s assuming that the bone mass problem hasn’t been solved within the ten to fifteen years of development it takes to get a program like this off of the ground.

Don’t use a straw-man, it degrades us all.

JonJon:

Right at this point and time there is no ion drive ,it’s just a theory using what we have it’s more than a year, if your talking untested theory why don’t you just teleport and save time

zobo1942:

Is it just the time of year, or does everyone need a nap? It seems like everyone on this site has become grumpy and adversarial lately.

Maybe discussing something related to chaos dwarfs would put everyone in a better mood.

Willmark:

Hey guys how about cooling it with the name calling and rather “colorful” ways to felons back to another’s commentary.

Thanks.

khedyarl:

Ion-drive technology is tested, and proven…

The Dawn spacecraft has broken every man made speed record we’ve put in front of it, and it’s orbiting Vesta right now.

Kera foehunter:

Throw jon jon don’t understand the ion-drive technology

But he sure knows about methane Technology



Kera for the win

JonJon:

Your using a unmanned model that’s just insane,what do you think that kind of exceleration is going to do to a human …answer they don’t know