Aliens

[David]

'underpopulated'? Didn't know that, either.

Just saying that there are other problems going into the future that shouldn't be brought under the Malthusian umbrella of population stability. 

[jay]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

[Giovanni Falcone]

'underpopulated'? Didn't know that, either.

Just saying that there are other problems going into the future that shouldn't be brought under the Malthusian umbrella of population stability. 

Sorry man! Just read the headlines, I'll take a look later!

[grimcity]

Wasn't disagreeing man, just elaborating on my underfunded statement.

[Belligerent Irish Cop]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

Just because you don't see anything worth while doesn't mean there isn't any. Lots of geologists would kill to get a chance to study moon rocks. The moon and other heavenly bodies preserve records of the solar system that don't exist on earth. On earth you can't find rocks that are 4 billion + years old, because they end up eroded away or dragged down into the bottom of the ocean due to tectonic subduction. You can find rocks that old on the moon though. Studying the moon lets us study the early earth.

Also the far-side of the moon is a perfect place for a radio telescope - and radio astronomy is becoming more and more difficult to do on earth due to terrestrial noise and interference. That's just two examples, but please check your ego at the door bitch because there are lots of people way smarter than you who would have plenty to study on the moon.

[jay]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

Just because you don't see anything worth while doesn't mean there isn't any. Lots of geologists would kill to get a chance to study moon rocks. The moon and other heavenly bodies preserve records of the solar system that don't exist on earth. On earth you can't find rocks that are 4 billion + years old, because they end up eroded away or dragged down into the bottom of the ocean due to tectonic subduction. You can find rocks that old on the moon though. Studying the moon lets us study the early earth.

Also the far-side of the moon is a perfect place for a radio telescope - and radio astronomy is becoming more and more difficult to do on earth due to terrestrial noise and interference. That's just two examples, but please check your ego at the door bitch because there are lots of people way smarter than you who would have plenty to study on the moon.

Well of course I would agree with you that there are probably still tons of things on the Moon that can be researched and tested and whatnot, I just don't think you could provide the financial justification for spending all that money to send guys to the moon just so geologists can have more moon rocks to study.  Same with the radio telescope thing.  I'm sure if/when radio astronomy becomes impossible to do from Earth there may be financial justification to put a telescope on the moon, but as of now i have a feeling its one of those really expensive projects that wont be worth a few slightly clearer pictures in your National Geographic.

[Inbred Jed]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

There has been a shitload of technologies pioneered by NASA that are used everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

[Giovanni Falcone]

Didn't they spend millions of dollars on some upside down pen, when they could've used a pencil?

[David]

'take the pen!'

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large

'Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1...'

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large

[jay]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

There has been a shitload of technologies pioneered by NASA that are used everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

What's your point? All of those inventions and innovations were essentially by-products of the actual missions.  So what if as a result of a multi-billion dollar mission to pick up moon rocks you also develop cordless powertools or LED screens?  You could do that on Earth separately for far less money.

[David]

 Progress and innovation are often "by products" of times when people were forced to innovate and come up with solutions to problems and daunting tasks. For example: WWII.  

[jay]

Progress and innovation are often "by products" of times where people were forced to innovate and come up with solutions to problems and daunting tasks. For example: WWII.� �

Word.  And I'm willing to bet that most of NASA's innovations occurred during the 50's and 60's when it had a focused goal (Launch the first satellite, then be the first to the moon) along with the collective backing of the entire democratic world.  The space race became something of a proxy war between two superpowers that couldn't directly attack each other.  Now that the Soviet Union is gone there is no overarching focus or goal for NASA to adopt or the American people to get behind.  Instead of furthering space technology to get the upper hand over a powerful rival, these days NASA wants to go to the Moon to research rocks or pump money into pipe dreams like sending men to Mars.  Actually, if China develops a kickass space program, it could be the best thing that happens to NASA since the fall of the Berlin wall.

[Goblinshark]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large

[grimcity]

Progress and innovation are often "by products" of times where people were forced to innovate and come up with solutions to problems and daunting tasks. For example: WWII.� �

Word.  And I'm willing to bet that most of NASA's innovations occurred during the 50's and 60's when it had a focused goal (Launch the first satellite, then be the first to the moon) along with the collective backing of the entire democratic world.  The space race became something of a proxy war between two superpowers that couldn't directly attack each other.  Now that the Soviet Union is gone there is no overarching focus or goal for NASA to adopt or the American people to get behind.  Instead of furthering space technology to get the upper hand over a powerful rival, these days NASA wants to go to the Moon to research rocks or pump money into pipe dreams like sending men to Mars.  Actually, if China develops a kickass space program, it could be the best thing that happens to NASA since the fall of the Berlin wall.

This is what I was talking about earlier, you're talking about NASA as a political object rather than a scientific agency.

Having said that, NASA has been doing as much as it can to further technology, from data compression to propulsion... while many of the things NASA has invented or inspired could have been done much later on, we don't know what would or wouldn't exist now because there was no incentive for some of the technologies outside of space travel at the time. It's only later that we realize that these technologies can serve us here, and in many cases those technologies are ubiquitous if not necessary for an average person.

If you don't find pure science important (not saying you do), that's one thing... but as science goes, learning about space is as vital to understanding ourselves as the study of biology... which also crosses over into the agency, along with physics, chemistry, and pretty much every other applied scientific disciplines.

[jay]

Progress and innovation are often "by products" of times where people were forced to innovate and come up with solutions to problems and daunting tasks. For example: WWII.� �

Word.  And I'm willing to bet that most of NASA's innovations occurred during the 50's and 60's when it had a focused goal (Launch the first satellite, then be the first to the moon) along with the collective backing of the entire democratic world.  The space race became something of a proxy war between two superpowers that couldn't directly attack each other.  Now that the Soviet Union is gone there is no overarching focus or goal for NASA to adopt or the American people to get behind.  Instead of furthering space technology to get the upper hand over a powerful rival, these days NASA wants to go to the Moon to research rocks or pump money into pipe dreams like sending men to Mars.  Actually, if China develops a kickass space program, it could be the best thing that happens to NASA since the fall of the Berlin wall.

This is what I was talking about earlier, you're talking about NASA as a political object rather than a scientific agency.

Having said that, NASA has been doing as much as it can to further technology, from data compression to propulsion... while many of the things NASA has invented or inspired could have been done much later on, we don't know what would or wouldn't exist now because there was no incentive for some of the technologies outside of space travel at the time. It's only later that we realize that these technologies can serve us here, and in many cases those technologies are ubiquitous if not necessary for an average person.

If you don't find pure science important (not saying you do), that's one thing... but as science goes, learning about space is as vital to understanding ourselves as the study of biology... which also crosses over into the agency, along with physics, chemistry, and pretty much every other applied scientific disciplines.

Did you copy this from their website?  Haha anyways, perhaps I am looking at this too politically but it's the politicians that decide what kind of funding the agency gets.  Speaking of funding, you can do the math but .5 percent of the U.S.'s annual $3.4 trillion budget is quite a lot money.  NASA has been important and still is, but it certainly isn't what it used to be in the public's eye.  I mean really, even the way you just described it sounds more like a glorified R&D department than what was once the symbol of American scientific dominance.  It's been 40 years since we landed on the moon, 30 years since we put a robot on Mars and since then nothing awesome has happened besides two mutli-billion dollar space shuttle catastrophes and several more billion dollar landings (and failed landings) of robots on Mars.  I'm just not surprised that public interest has waned and that subsequently funding has declined.

[penguin meat]

Aliens are glow in the dark, glow in the light, and glow in the zarnt.

[grimcity]

Did you copy this from their website?

Nah, they would have corrected my typo.

Haha anyways, perhaps I am looking at this too politically but it's the politicians that decide what kind of funding the agency gets.

That's what I've been saying, and I think it's shitty that NASA has been relegated such a small piece of the Federal budget pie.

Speaking of funding, you can do the math but .5 percent of the U.S.'s annual $3.4 trillion budget is quite a lot money.

It's a lot of money if it were in our bank accounts, but it's dimes and nickels compared to what the Fed actually does spend money on. NASA was at 3 and 4% in the 60's. Should be at least that today.

NASA has been important and still is, but it certainly isn't what it used to be in the public's eye.

...not NASA's fault. Anyway, there's more science being done that the public isn't aware of than is, so it's a moot point.

I mean really, even the way you just described it sounds more like a glorified R&D department than what was once the symbol of American scientific dominance.

All applied science is R&D. But as I mentioned earlier, NASA does a lot for education as well... from funding to initiating educational programs for all education levels.

It's been 40 years since we landed on the moon, 30 years since we put a robot on Mars

1997 and 2004 are not 30 years ago.

and since then nothing awesome has happened besides two mutli-billion dollar space shuttle catastrophes and several more billion dollar landings (and failed landings) of robots on Mars.

Cassini? Landing on Titan? The discovery of (what is at this writing) the oldest galaxy? Sensing atmospheres on exoplanets? The New Horizons mission heading to Pluto and Charon? ...? ...?

I'm just not surprised that public interest has waned and that subsequently funding has declined.

Funding declines because of politics, public interest declines due to ignorance, yet science is for the public interest. Go figure.

[spool of cord]

I'm pretty certain all of those above mentioned technologies would have been developed without NASA's help due to consumer demand. Cutting down on government waste should really start with our massive defense budget and work its way down to programs like NASA. I don't even see how sending people to the moon being important to humanity is even a debate. Its like the drug war, 100% symbolic with no significant gains for anyone other than suites looking good in the public eye.


and yeah irish cop...I do pay taxes, don't live with my parents, don't own a mac or a cell phone. However I do use a lot of cordless power tools.

[jay]

Did you copy this from their website?

Nah, they would have corrected my typo.

Haha anyways, perhaps I am looking at this too politically but it's the politicians that decide what kind of funding the agency gets.

That's what I've been saying, and I think it's shitty that NASA has been relegated such a small piece of the Federal budget pie.

Speaking of funding, you can do the math but .5 percent of the U.S.'s annual $3.4 trillion budget is quite a lot money.

It's a lot of money if it were in our bank accounts, but it's dimes and nickels compared to what the Fed actually does spend money on. NASA was at 3 and 4% in the 60's. Should be at least that today.

NASA has been important and still is, but it certainly isn't what it used to be in the public's eye.

...not NASA's fault. Anyway, there's more science being done that the public isn't aware of than is, so it's a moot point.

I mean really, even the way you just described it sounds more like a glorified R&D department than what was once the symbol of American scientific dominance.

All applied science is R&D. But as I mentioned earlier, NASA does a lot for education as well... from funding to initiating educational programs for all education levels.

It's been 40 years since we landed on the moon, 30 years since we FIRST put a robot on Mars

1997 and 2004 are not 30 years ago.

and since then nothing awesome has happened besides two mutli-billion dollar space shuttle catastrophes and several more billion dollar landings (and failed landings) of robots on Mars.

Cassini? Landing on Titan? The discovery of (what is at this writing) the oldest galaxy? Sensing atmospheres on exoplanets? The New Horizons mission heading to Pluto and Charon? ...? ...?

I'm just not surprised that public interest has waned and that subsequently funding has declined.

Funding declines because of politics, public interest declines due to ignorance, yet science is for the public interest. Go figure.

Actually its probably more trivial a percentage if it was in our bank accounts.  The government has to spend money on about a thousand more things than the average person.  NASA got 4 percent of the budget in the 60's more because the US was engaged in an international pissing contest than a desire to know the properties of moon rocks.  It was in the national interest to fund the shit out of the space program, it helped unite the country, give it a sense of pride, a morale boost in the face of constant nuclear threat, along with helping develop military satellites and ICBMs (with some cordless drills on the side).  More importantly, if NASA is still sending these probes out you mentioned and conducting research (which is perfectly rad for all the eggheads who care) why do you need to increase funding six to eightfold?  In the face of the looming Medicare/Social Security issue and the massive national debt and the still-recovering economy, how could NASA possibly justify that?  Would it say that it would be able to send out even more probes into space and learn even more about the atmospheres of planets no one will ever visit?  Or would it perhaps start a manned mission to Mars that might be possible in the next 1-2 decades?  The American population doesn't care about either of these things, nor is it in the government's current interest to fund these things.        

[illmatic]

i'm kinda mad this sweet alien thread turned into arguing nasa funding

[grimcity]

More importantly, if NASA is still sending these probes out you mentioned and conducting research (which is perfectly rad for all the eggheads who care) why do you need to increase funding six to eightfold?

Sorry, but that's fucking amazing.

[Reggie Nobles]

^ yea i gotta agree nasa is important as shit fools. it aint all about goin to the moon nigga, its about learning how the universe works and managing all the satellites and shit revolving around the earth.

its really dumb to argue about how the government is putting money here or there... like we can change that

[Inbred Jed]

Maybe the American people are kind of fed up with pumping money into something that they see has little effect on their own lives.  Eventual technological innovation aside, what is the point of sending people to the moon again?  what else is there to explore besides more moon rocks?  The farthest we're gotten since then is to put a shitty space station in low orbit around the earth?  What else is there for NASA to do?  Colonize the Moon?  Colonize Mars?  For what?  its not like large segments of the population are ever going to be moving to other planets

There has been a shitload of technologies pioneered by NASA that are used everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml

What's your point? All of those inventions and innovations were essentially by-products of the actual missions.  So what if as a result of a multi-billion dollar mission to pick up moon rocks you also develop cordless powertools or LED screens?  You could do that on Earth separately for far less money.

The advances come from the need to overcome an obstacle.

[Donkey Lips]

Yeah humans have walked on the moon, but when the fuck will NASA go inside that beast?

[David]

Here's an interview with Gary Mckinnon...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large

Buzz Aldrin

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large

[David]

"In 2005, while being interviewed for a documentary titled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, Aldrin told an interviewer that they saw an unidentified flying object. Aldrin told David Morrison, an NAI Senior Scientist, that the documentary cut the crew's conclusion that they were probably seeing one of four detached spacecraft adapter panels. Their S-IVB upper stage was 6,000 miles away, but the four panels were jettisoned before the S-IVB made its separation maneuver so they would closely follow the Apollo 11 spacecraft until its first midcourse correction.[39] When Aldrin appeared on The Howard Stern Show on August 15, 2007, Stern asked him about the supposed UFO sighting. Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.[40][41][42]

Interviewed by the Science Channel, Aldrin mentioned seeing unidentified objects, and he claims his words were taken out of context; he asked the Science Channel to clarify to viewers he did not see alien spacecraft, but they refused.[43]"

[BriefCase]

Didn't they spend millions of dollars on some upside down pen, when they could've used a pencil?

"NASA did not spend millions of dollars trying to develop a pen to write in space when they could just have used pencils. First off, they did use pencils (like the cosmonauts) rather than trying to develop a pen, but when a smart man developed (at his own expense) a pressurized pen that not only would work in space but under the ocean as well, NASA purchased 400 of the pens at the cost of $6 per pen (they are now about $50 per pen and you can buy them online here). The Soviets also bought his pens. To this day, both nations still use the Fisher Space Pen (named after its inventor Paul Fisher)"
i love factlets.

[cheep]

ive seen aliens... Dmt is a hell of a drug

[sven thorkel]

on the moon, americans walk. on the earth, americans don't walk

space colonization could really help decrease those child obesity rates, but then again, they'll need funding. funding might come from increasing gas prices. shit, that might mean that i might actually have to walk. gawddangit

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

you don't need to hop on an alien probe to see space. you just need to relax your mind and listen to the music of the earth. go on- relax your mind

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.	Small | Large