The US space program in decline?

[Coito ergo sum]

The survival of the species argument is only one of many arguments in favor of pursuing manned space exploration. It's common sense. A species confined to one tiny planet is less likely to survive than a species that has expanded to other worlds.

But it is soft soap, philosophically.

It's not philosophy. It's just a fact.

Species go extinct.

Yes, that's true.

There's nobody in the audience anymore, which prompts my comments about this being a religion.

It's not a religion. It's just one of many reasons why manned space exploration is important.

You obviously think that evolution leads somewhere.

Where do you get that? I never said or implied that evolution leads anywhere.

That must be your engineering training talking to you. Intelligent design, and all.

I don't believe in Intelligent Design, Creationism, or any god or gods. So what the fuck are you even talking about?

Well, no. Not really. It's as good a religion as any for saving the human race.

It's not a religion at all. And, religions aren't good at saving the human race. Every one of them has failed.

Yours will, too.

I don't have a religion.

In all likelihood, let us say, given the track record of ex recto assertions. Space exploration is attractive on the merits of human curiosity alone, and "big ideas" like "saving the human race" belong with religion.

Big ideas are not confined to religion. In fact, religious ideas, while packaged in big packages, upon close examination turn out to be small ideas. Take the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God concepts. These are small gods compared to what we now know about the universe.

You can't scale up the individual organism's survival to the species level. That's just a perversion of the understanding of evolutionary theory.

Boy, what in the hell is the matter with you? One, I never said you could scale up an individual's survival to the species level, and I'm not fucking talking about evolution. O.k.? How many times do I have to say it. Saying that a group of people that inhabit two or more worlds is less likely to suffer a cataclysm is common fucking sense, and it has nothing to do with species level survival vs. individual survival or evolution at all. It has to do with eggs either being in one basket or two. What is so flippin' hard to understand about that?

This thread is just about the US space program and whether it is in decline, and whether Mr. Armstrong's comments were meritorious.

Then you should have stayed on what you thought was the topic, instead of all getting into "saving the human race".

Ummm....dude....you asked me for my reasons why I thought the space program was important, and why I thought it should be expanded. I answered your fucking question. If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. If you don't like the thread topic, go somewhere else or create one you like.

You know what makes technical and scientific pronouncements "meritorious". We call it "evidence", instead of "soft soap".

I made no technical pronouncement. It's mere common sense that if you have a population of people, and you have the choice to put them all on one island, or to put some of them on another island thousands of miles away, you'd have less of a chance of them all getting wiped out by a tsunami if their on two islands than one. If that's to complex for you, then I can't help you much more than that.

Do you deny that? Do you think that there is no benefit to putting eggs in more than one basket?

I would propose to stop that by not spending as much, and cancelling/reducing many wasteful programs, and at the same time increasing the tax revenues to the government to pay off the debt as much as possible. That's it in general. The details, of course, would involve a discussion of which programs get cut and which don't.

Short on specifics again, are we?

Dude, the thread is not about cutting the deficit. Start another thread on that topic, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

That's not how engineers talk. That's how MBA's talk. I'm not anti-business, CES. I'm anti-bullshit.

You, anti-bullshit? You sure shovel enough of it. You don't know how engineers talk.

I'm not an MBA, so that's like strike three or four for you so far. Maybe you ought to avoid making dumb-ass assumptions about other people when you post barely intelligible screeds.

I am not claiming to have all the answers.

I agree that we need to stop the deficit spending.

Oooh. Give that man a cigar.

What, exactly, is your problem?

How would you suggest space exploration be handled?

I suggest abandoning nationalism,

Short on specifics, long on fluff and politics.

vis-a-vis big projects, just as you have. We're on the same page there. It just seems to me that your left hand does not really know what your right is up to.

You have the nerve to criticize my explanations, and you come up with this?

The reality is that in order for there to be a space program, then people have to do the work. In order for people to do the work, they have to have have an opportunity. Expanding the space program expands the need for relevant professionals to work in the space program, obviously. That need will have to be filled, and the fact that the opportunities exist will encourage more people to move toward those open opportunities.

That's it for the specifics? Wha'd they teach you in that MBA program, anyway? Soft fucking soap, is my guess.

I've given far more specifics than you have, by far. All you do is name call and hand wave.

What specifics do you want? Do you want to know what programs I would be in favor of? What?

I'm giving you a hard time about the business culture,

For what reason, I have no idea. It appears to me to be based on some false and invented assumptions on your part about who I am and what I believe in. You should probably step back and realize that just because you think something in your head doesn't make it true, and you might want to ask someone what they believe rather than make silly, juvenile accusations and implications about what their views are regarding business, philosophy, politics and religion are.

which squashes people for being too smart. Think about how squashed by it you might be, by this time. Business nowadays takes big risks with other people's money. Fuck all.

What is wrong with you?

[Surendra Darathy]

Meanwhile, the UK space program soldiers manfully onwards - we made the batteries for the Herschel space telescope. Woo!

Remember "The Mouse That Roared". The UK gave the world Peter Sellers. Is that not enough?

I believe the Peter Sellers has depreciated significantly against the Miley Cyrus in recent years.

Is that because of how big the batteries are on the Miley Cyrus? Re-volt-ing.

[Surendra Darathy]

Ummm....dude....you asked me for my reasons why I thought the space program was important, and why I thought it should be expanded. I answered your fucking question. If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. If you don't like the thread topic, go somewhere else or create one you like.

As you might recall (but let me refresh your memory, which seems defective), I came into this thread after you had already made your Grand Pronouncement (and specifically to take you to task for it):

Link

Perhaps, but the space program is vital. It's important to the advancement of science and technology. It's important from a national defense standpoint. It's important from a standpoint of world leadership. It's important from a standpoint of education. And, it's important from the standpoint of long term natural resource availability and, ultimately, survival of the species. There are few things as important as the space program.

My argument to you is that you've got the cart before the horse, in terms of your argument. You're making a crappy argument. It's not even crappy. It's non-existent. You just blurt out your opinion that the space program is important for the above reasons, which are (in no particular order) quintessentially nationalistic and mystical-religious. Natural resource availability? There ain't all that much water on Mars, which is why the real estate market has crashed there, too.

If you believe that a permanent and viable Mars Colony is feasible without full economic unity (and a lot of hand-wringing about priorities, given the way people actually behave) well, you're on your way to Disney Fantasy Land. Furthermore, if you believe that an argument for "survival of the human species" should rest with a Mars Colony, big talk is your speciality.

Look at the "substance" of your argument:

Saying that a group of people that inhabit two or more worlds is less likely to suffer a cataclysm is common fucking sense, and it has nothing to do with species level survival vs. individual survival or evolution at all. It has to do with eggs either being in one basket or two.

Yes, but "inhabiting" the planet Mars is rather more easily joshed about than done, and you are, as we say, very short on specifics, other than encouraging development of space technology, which already has cogent arguments in its behalf, regardless of rhetorical excesses about "preserving the human species". That's the soft soap I am talking about. Pie in the sky. Straight from the pages of a Heinlein science fiction novel, apparently.

The reason I have gotten so exercised with you is because of the big show you make about your own unreligion. You really need to do a better job of shedding your Pie In The Sky fantasies. Otherwise, your expostulations are hypocritical.

Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion, and in fact I share your opinion about the value of the space program. In fact, I may be a stauncher advocate of the space program than you are, because I don't back up my advocacy with vacuous fantasy. This is why I think your argument in favor of it is ridiculous. You seem to have a hard time understanding that, and also a hard time understanding that you would have been way better off simply expressing your opinion as such. Because then, I would have just agreed with you. This is a very old argument, CES, and things have gotten worse (instead of better) since people were complaining about the 25 billion USD they spent making those videos about people walking on the moon. Now we spend 25 billion USD at one fell swoop bailing out banks. Read 'em and weep, CES. Sorry, but that's the world you inherit.

People? Extinction's too good for 'em, is what I say. But that's just my opinion, and I make sure to mark it as such.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why camera crew no reflect in nice space man's helmet?

[Surendra Darathy]

Why camera crew no reflect in nice space man's helmet?

They're vampires?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why camera crew no reflect in nice space man's helmet?

They're vampires?

Ah, that explains why I have such a tough time shaving in the morning.

[Surendra Darathy]

Why camera crew no reflect in nice space man's helmet?

They're vampires?

Ah, that explains why I have such a tough time shaving in the morning.

No, it's why there are difficulties getting images of you (shaving or not) onto a photographic emulsion. Or a CCD. Even a vampire can shave just by feel. Though, if you were undead, why would your beard be growing? This just gets worse and worse.

Actually, I'm not a vampire expert. Some vampires couldn't fog a mirror. Let alone a photographic plate. Undead.

It's like un-knowledge, the kind that permeates this thread.

Of course, maybe they're not vampires at all, but are just projected down from the Holodecks. As in Rolodex.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why camera crew no reflect in nice space man's helmet?

They're vampires?

Ah, that explains why I have such a tough time shaving in the morning.

No, it's why there are difficulties getting images of you (shaving or not) onto a photographic emulsion. Or a CCD. Even a vampire can shave just by feel.

Actually, I'm not a vampire expert. Some vampires couldn't fog a mirror. Let alone a photographic plate. Undead.

It's like un-knowledge, the kind that permeates this thread.

As vampires are room temperature they wouldn't fog a mirror. I brought this up at the last meeting of the Coven, but it was tabled.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ummm....dude....you asked me for my reasons why I thought the space program was important, and why I thought it should be expanded. I answered your fucking question. If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. If you don't like the thread topic, go somewhere else or create one you like.

As you might recall (but let me refresh your memory, which seems defective), I came into this thread after you had already made your Grand Pronouncement (and specifically to take you to task for it):

Link

Correct. I thought you were the same person to whom I responded. Nevertheless, I brought it up as one of many reasons the space program is important and not outweighed by the supposed "bigger problems" we have down on Earth.

Perhaps, but the space program is vital. It's important to the advancement of science and technology. It's important from a national defense standpoint. It's important from a standpoint of world leadership. It's important from a standpoint of education. And, it's important from the standpoint of long term natural resource availability and, ultimately, survival of the species. There are few things as important as the space program.

My argument to you is that you've got the cart before the horse, in terms of your argument. You're making a crappy argument. It's not even crappy. It's non-existent. You just blurt out your opinion that the space program is important for the above reasons, which are (in no particular order) quintessentially nationalistic and mystical-religious.

None of them is mystical-religious. One or more are nationalistic, sure. National security is nationalistic. But, that's still a good reason for the US space program. As long as we still have nations, the US, like any other country, may take actions that are in its national interests. If I had my druthers, we would combine efforts with, at a minimum, Europe, to have greater resources and know-how to do more. I would add to my list that there are technological developments to be made in a space program that will benefit mankind as well.

If you believe that a permanent and viable Mars Colony is feasible without full economic unity (and a lot of hand-wringing about priorities, given the way people actually behave) well, you're on your way to Disney Fantasy Land. Furthermore, if you believe that an argument for "survival of the human species" should rest with a Mars Colony, big talk is your speciality.

I'm not advocating a Mars colony yet. There are many steps necessary before we even know if it is feasible to have a sustained Mars colony. First, we need to go back tot he moon. After that we need to at least get a person to walk on Mars and return safely. We also need to continue to learn how to live and work, and build, in near Earth and near Moon locations. A Mars "Colony" is not something that would be feasible until long after anyone posting on rationalia today is long dead.

I imagine there will be lots of hand wringing about priorities, sure. And, the world will, ultimately, have to unite. However, it is folly to sit and wait until the world unites to get any of the many necessary prerequisites to even beginning to think of a Mars "Colony" done. Even getting a man to Mars and safely back, if we were on the former plan, wouldn't occur until the mid-2030's at the earliest.

Look at the "substance" of your argument:

Saying that a group of people that inhabit two or more worlds is less likely to suffer a cataclysm is common fucking sense, and it has nothing to do with species level survival vs. individual survival or evolution at all. It has to do with eggs either being in one basket or two.

Yes, but "inhabiting" the planet Mars is rather more easily joshed about than done,

Nobody says it's easy. Certainly not me.

and you are, as we say, very short on specifics, other than encouraging development of space technology, which already has cogent arguments in its behalf, regardless of rhetorical excesses about "preserving the human species".

It's not a rhetorical excess. It's one of many reasons for fostering manned space exploration.

That's the soft soap I am talking about. Pie in the sky. Straight from the pages of a Heinlein science fiction novel, apparently.

You're going to have clarify something here.

Are you suggesting, yes or no, that having some humans residing off of Earth would not be better from a survival standpoint than having all humans residing on Earth?

The reason I have gotten so exercised with you is because of the big show you make about your own unreligion. You really need to do a better job of shedding your Pie In The Sky fantasies. Otherwise, your expostulations are hypocritical.

One - pie in the sky fantasies are not necessarily religion. Even if Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking were espousing a pie-in-the-sky fantasy when they suggested that it is better not to keep all our eggs in one planetary basket, that doesn't make it a religious concept.

Two - it's not pie in the sky. No matter how many times you spout that nonsense, it doesn't get any more true. Look - humans residing off of Earth, whether on Mars, on the Moon, or in space stations, is better than humans being 100% confined to Earth. That's just reality. Feel free to reject it.

Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion, and in fact I share your opinion about the value of the space program. However I think your argument in favor of it is ridiculous. You seem to have a hard time understanding that, and also a hard time understanding that you would have been way better off simply expressing your opinion as such. Because then, I would have just agreed with you.

Wait -- tell me - what should I have said that would have caused you to just agree with me?

This is a very old argument, CES, and things have gotten worse (instead of better) since people were complaining about the 25 billion USD they spent making those videos about people walking on the moon.

"Those videos" -- ahhh.... maybe it's clearer now? Are you one of those kooks who think men never walked on the Moon?

Now we spend 25 billion USD at one fell swoop bailing out banks.

That wouldn't have been my choice.

Read 'em and weep, CES. Sorry, but that's the world you inherit.

That also has jack-fucking-squat to do with the Sagan/Hawking argument (that I agree with) about manned space exploration being ultimately necessary for the survival of the species.

People? Extinction's too good for 'em, is what I say. But that's just my opinion, and I make sure to mark it as such.

Oh, so you're bitching that I didn't put a disclaimer of "in my opinion" in my posts? That's just ridiculous. Hardly anyone prefaces their opinions here on rationalia with careful "that's just my opinion" blurbs. If anyone makes an assertion in a post here, you can be sure it's their opinion, unless they say it's not their opinion.

Sure, it's my opinion. Whose opinion did you think I was expressing? When I cited folks that agreed with me or that I relied on, I credited them.

Or, do you think that when I wrote out my post that I was telling you that it was indisputable fact? Nobody said you weren't free to adopt whatever contrary position you want. Feel free. I wasn't aware you needed to be reassured of that fact every two seconds. I'll be sure to provide proper disclaimers next time.

[Surendra Darathy]

As vampires are room temperature they wouldn't fog a mirror. I brought this up at the last meeting of the Coven, but it was tabled.

I bet you all immediately tucked into your wooden steaks. There at the table, I mean. What you need are cryo-mirrors. They are sort of like the inverse of radiating black bodies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If our Congresscritters were to have someone read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress to them they might be more interested in getting up there before somebody else does, like the Chinese. "Poor man's nukes" is the operative word here.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As vampires are room temperature they wouldn't fog a mirror. I brought this up at the last meeting of the Coven, but it was tabled.

I bet you all immediately tucked into your wooden steaks. There at the table, I mean. What you need are cryo-mirrors.

My favorite wooden steak is Plank's Constant.

[Surendra Darathy]

If our Congresscritters were to have someone read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress to them they might be more interested in getting up there before somebody else does, like the Chinese. "Poor man's nukes" is the operative word here.

Patriotism is the last refuge. For one and all. All for one, and every man for himself. Imagine the chagrin of the undead at having the victors rewrite history. Take Wounded Knee, for example...

You see, oblivion is not so bad. It's like before you were bored.

Any time someone mentions Congress, I always think about sexual congress.

[Surendra Darathy]

My favorite wooden steak is Plank's Constant.

Me, I like a nice Heisen Burger topped with fresh Green's functions, anions and a pico. On a sesame bunsen.

Or better yet, roast Dirac of lambda.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My favorite wooden steak is Plank's Constant.

Me, I like a nice Heisen Burger topped with fresh Green's functions, anions and a pico. On a sesame bunsen.

Or better yet, roast Dirac of lambda.

That diet sounds a little quarky.