LibriumArcana.Games

Story here.

NASA lost in space: chief

September 29, 2005

WASHINGTON: NASA chief Michael Griffin has claimed the US space agency lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on developing the space shuttle and the international space station.

Mr Griffin told USA Today newspaper that almost all of the US manned space program for the past three decades had been a mistake.

Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Mr Griffin said: "My opinion is that it was.

"It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible. It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path."

Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."

The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Mr Griffin announced this month that the US would send four astronauts to the moon in 2018.

If NASA lost its way in the '70s, what should have been done instead?

Take a look at High Frontire, establish serious bases in higher earth orbit, establish space colonies to ensure survivel.

Even in the seventies, it was well known that interest in the space program was waning, and it was also known that the shuttle would be little more than an LEO sat delivery platform and eye candy to show that we were still playing at space.

Ace is right, we should've been moving onward and outward already. Damn the fucking faint hearts.

Stofsk wrote:If NASA lost its way in the '70s, what should have been done instead?

Unfortunately, they didn't have many options; Congress was slashing their budgets so hard I wouldn't be at all surprised if the NASA staff were seriously wondering if the whole organization was about to be dismantled.

What really should have been done (although the budget may not have been there for it) was the continued development and construction of heavy lift rockets. Yes, men in space is nice, science experiments in space looks good... but we could do that with Skylab! Or other, bigger, better space stations that we could have built and launched had we stuck with heavy lift and capsule spacecraft.

It's fucking insane that the Russians were able to deploy several space stations between Skylab and Mir, and that they were able to build Mir (which was pretty big by the end) all by themselves, and yet ISS is years behind schedule. It's ridiculous.

The Shuttle was a massive mistake. It was a desperate attempt to get the Air Force to play with them, and that just backfired when the Air Force handed them a list of requirements for them to support the Shuttle that made it the ungainly beast it is today.

With better planning and a little more money (not even a whole lot more, just enough to keep the heavy lift rockets going and some capsule flights - hell, without the Shuttle, that eventually adds up to a savings of over a billion dollars a year), we should have had a large space station in orbit that could support the continued inhabitation of several astronauts at minimum, and we should have been developing and testing long-term life support systems for eventual use on a Martian expedition, as well as continuing research into counteracting the detrimental effects of long-term microgravity.

Petrosjko wrote:Ace is right, we should've been moving onward and outward already. Damn the fucking faint hearts.

I think it has a lot to do with the feignt of wallet. The Space Program was damnedably expensive and paying few dividends beyond PR. There was some science but it was of the sort that's conducted now via remotes and the Shuttle. So the public really did have to wonder why they should be spending billions and trillions on that as oppossed to other more pressing priorities.

And that leaves aside the fact that the science and egineering just isn't there for a lot of schemes. Popular Science evaluated some of those schemes as a hypothetical in one of their space issues; most of them would have gotten the crew killed or turned into a cancer-fied cadaver to be. It's great to say that we can but the people making those proclaimations often have an extremely superficial understanding of the challenges involved.

Petrosjko wrote:Ace is right, we should've been moving onward and outward already. Damn the fucking faint hearts.

I think it has a lot to do with the feignt of wallet. The Space Program was damnedably expensive and paying few dividends beyond PR. There was some science but it was of the sort that's conducted now via remotes and the Shuttle. So the public really did have to wonder why they should be spending billions and trillions on that as oppossed to other more pressing priorities.

And that leaves aside the fact that the science and egineering just isn't there for a lot of schemes. Popular Science evaluated some of those schemes as a hypothetical in one of their space issues; most of them would have gotten the crew killed or turned into a cancer-fied cadaver to be. It's great to say that we can but the people making those proclaimations often have an extremely superficial understanding of the challenges involved.

Lord Stormbringer wrote:I think it has a lot to do with the feignt of wallet. The Space Program was damnedably expensive and paying few dividends beyond PR. There was some science but it was of the sort that's conducted now via remotes and the Shuttle. So the public really did have to wonder why they should be spending billions and trillions on that as oppossed to other more pressing priorities.

And that leaves aside the fact that the science and egineering just isn't there for a lot of schemes. Popular Science evaluated some of those schemes as a hypothetical in one of their space issues; most of them would have gotten the crew killed or turned into a cancer-fied cadaver to be. It's great to say that we can but the people making those proclaimations often have an extremely superficial understanding of the challenges involved.

The return comes in the spin-off technologies. How many lives has cardiological dye-testing saved? Direct spin-off of research engaged in for the space program. Velcro? Space program.

It should be presented in such a fashion as to point to the return on direct spin-off tech and 2nd to 3rd generation spin-off technology. Furthermore, pursuing solutions to the problems you mentioned will also reap great benefits.

Instead, we got drowned in the idiocy of 'fix our problems on Earth' whiners, who are just seeking to dump more money into social welfare ratholes.

Frankly, the inly way to come anywehre near "fixing" our "problems" on earth is through the development of technology, and science. By increasing funding for both, we can fix starvation though the use of genetically modified foods, and compact, non-spoiing foods with psychotic nutrient loads developed for the space program, we an develop things for the space program which come in handy down here. Tang? Space program. Hypothermia blankets IIRC space program.

We can colonize other planets. And nothing is better for poor people than being colonists You never know, they may very well grow up so well that they challenge us for independance.

Petrosjko wrote:The return comes in the spin-off technologies. How many lives has cardiological dye-testing saved? Direct spin-off of research engaged in for the space program. Velcro? Space program.

It should be presented in such a fashion as to point to the return on direct spin-off tech and 2nd to 3rd generation spin-off technology. Furthermore, pursuing solutions to the problems you mentioned will also reap great benefits.

And that weighs against the how many trillions that has been spent? I'm all for the space program but dye-testing, velcro, and tefelon are not exactly big pay offs. The US public needs more than that to continue funding programs that suck off hundreds of billions every year for a frankly measely pay off.

Frankly, I also think that NASA just needs to be dropped. The Apollo program was it's last major success. Everything since then as has been baby steps with no follow up. I don't really blame the American people for being less than enthused.

Petrosjko wrote:Instead, we got drowned in the idiocy of 'fix our problems on Earth' whiners, who are just seeking to dump more money into social welfare ratholes.

There are a hell of a lot of things that ultimately need to be taken care of; many of them have as strong a case for that as you for space. I'd love to see some truly stupid programs cut but there are other legitimate claims that require funding. National defense, infrastructure, real regulation. The list goes on and it's just not that simple.

Of course we also have to realize that a certain level of human misery is just plain old inevitable.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Frankly, the inly way to come anywehre near "fixing" our "problems" on earth is through the development of technology, and science. By increasing funding for both, we can fix starvation though the use of genetically modified foods, and compact, non-spoiing foods with psychotic nutrient loads developed for the space program, we an develop things for the space program which come in handy down here.

Many of those research programs are mutally exclusive or at best have a tiny overlap with today's space program. Science and technology are great but there are also infrastructure demands that have to be in place as well and those require investment. That has been the disconnect between the better world scientists for ages.

Science is the first step on a truly massive process and better scientists than you have utterly missed that.

Tang? Space program. Hypothermia blankets IIRC space program.

Both were improved but had come about from WW2 programs to take care of soldiers. Tang derived from similar products, like instant coffee, which had come about. And hypothermia blankets were emergency gear. Nothing the space program can be directly credited that's for sure.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:We can colonize other planets. And nothing is better for poor people than being colonists You never know, they may very well grow up so well that they challenge us for independance.

You do realize that unlike on-planet colonization there is no way that it'll make a demographically appreciable difference. And for that matter barring some titanic changes to how space travel really works the poor and the undereducated will be absolutely the worst and least likely to ever get picked for a new planet.

What all of you don't seem to have realized is that there are immense technological, socialogical, and ecnonomic hurdles that still have not been cleared. We still will have astronauts irradiated unacceptably on any long duration, deep space mission. And of course bone, muscle, and tissue loss. And of course all the social challenges.

These are not trivial despite what the utterly uninformed think, we're not entirely ready.

Lord Stormbringer wrote:What all of you don't seem to have realized is that there are immense technological, socialogical, and ecnonomic hurdles that still have not been cleared. We still will have astronauts irradiated unacceptably on any long duration, deep space mission. And of course bone, muscle, and tissue loss. And of course all the social challenges.

These are not trivial despite what the utterly uninformed think, we're not entirely ready.

And we're not even trying that hard to get ready.

You want the ultimate return on investment? It's having survivable human populations off-planet by the time the next Dinosaur Killer hits.

Petrosjko wrote:

Lord Stormbringer wrote:What all of you don't seem to have realized is that there are immense technological, socialogical, and ecnonomic hurdles that still have not been cleared. We still will have astronauts irradiated unacceptably on any long duration, deep space mission. And of course bone, muscle, and tissue loss. And of course all the social challenges.

These are not trivial despite what the utterly uninformed think, we're not entirely ready.

And we're not even trying that hard to get ready.

Read Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. There is plenty of work being done on it, the spacestation while a baby step is advancing what we know as does shuttle flight. More expensive while offering less, yes. But there is plenty of work going on, it's just not all of it involves the same drama and adventure of the steely eyed misslemen of yore.

Petrosjko wrote:You want the ultimate return on investment? It's having survivable human populations off-planet by the time the next Dinosaur Killer hits.

Good, now go sell it to a bunch of welfare queens.

Lord Stormbringer wrote:
Good, now go sell it to a bunch of welfare queens.

Holy flashback Batman! Welfare queens. The last time I remember hearing about them was a reference to the Reagan years.

You do realize that unlike on-planet colonization there is no way that it'll make a demographically appreciable difference. And for that matter barring some titanic changes to how space travel really works the poor and the undereducated will be absolutely the worst and least likely to ever get picked for a new planet.

The sarcasm should have been obvious...

Many of those research programs are mutally exclusive or at best have a tiny overlap with today's space program. Science and technology are great but there are also infrastructure demands that have to be in place as well and those require investment. That has been the disconnect between the better world scientists for ages.

Science is the first step on a truly massive process and better scientists than you have utterly missed that.

I am well aware that there are infastructural needs which need to be taken care of. Not saying we should neglect them. But advances in materials science, propulsion, and countless other things have applications, even indirect ones elsewhere. To say nothing of the inherent benefits of such persuits. To say, essentially, that knowledge is to expensive to warrant investment, is to do a disservice to ourselves and future generations.

Science as a first step, is a step that lately, we have been to lazy to take.

What all of you don't seem to have realized is that there are immense technological, socialogical, and ecnonomic hurdles that still have not been cleared. We still will have astronauts irradiated unacceptably on any long duration, deep space mission. And of course bone, muscle, and tissue loss. And of course all the social challenges.

And we wont be, until we do the research, which require live trials. In order to fix bone and tissue loss, we actually have to put people in space. in order to fix the radiation problems, we have to actually build prototypes of new reactors/hulls/suits and do researh into absorbing gamma rays chemically. We need to actually fund the spaqce program, and the national science foundation. Something which is simply not done. One bomber is the entire budget of the latter organization for an entire year.

Cynical Cat wrote:

Lord Stormbringer wrote:
Good, now go sell it to a bunch of welfare queens.

Holy flashback Batman! Welfare queens. The last time I remember hearing about them was a reference to the Reagan years.

Blessed be the name of Reagan.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:

You do realize that unlike on-planet colonization there is no way that it'll make a demographically appreciable difference. And for that matter barring some titanic changes to how space travel really works the poor and the undereducated will be absolutely the worst and least likely to ever get picked for a new planet.

The sarcasm should have been obvious...

One can never tell when you're serious and genuinely believe this stuff or when you're being less than serious. Hard to say.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:I am well aware that there are infastructural needs which need to be taken care of. Not saying we should neglect them. But advances in materials science, propulsion, and countless other things have applications, even indirect ones elsewhere. To say nothing of the inherent benefits of such persuits. To say, essentially, that knowledge is to expensive to warrant investment, is to do a disservice to ourselves
and future generations.

We have already made a huge strides, how many of those have trickled down to Africa, Asia or South America. Very little. Even below the poverty line is obscenely wealthy and well taken care of to most of the world. We have science and technology to thank for that to be sure. But before we break ourselves for the next breakthrough let's worry about the have nots.

Just for an example, HIV medications. High technology and unavailable to those that need it most. Not because it's impossible but because we can't or won't pay for it. Should we really forget that problem in pursuit of the next Tang or Tefelon or Velcro? Alyrium, to indulge in pure science at the expense of worthwhile programs, in hopes of esoteric benefits later, does a great disservce to the present. There has to be a balance and that might just mean we don't get their as fast as some here would like.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Science as a first step, is a step that lately, we have been to lazy to take.

No, we haven't and only an ivory tower egghead would make such a statement. There is plenty of science being conducted every day across hundreds of different fields. Get off your high horse and open your damn eyes.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:And we wont be, until we do the research, which require live trials. In order to fix bone and tissue loss, we actually have to put people in space.

And unless certain technologies are ready, they'll just be nazi-esque murder for science. When it doesn't work, it doesn't work and trying to force it is just going to cost lives.

As for research, what do you think Skylab, Mir, and the ISS are doing? They are being used as labratories for studying that in the best, safest manner possible right now. Which is why I disagree some what with the ignorant opinion that they're doing nothing with them.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:in order to fix the radiation problems, we have to actually build prototypes of new reactors/hulls/suits and do researh into absorbing gamma rays chemically.

Yes, we do. And NASA and others are funding that but it's hideously expensive, very time consuming, and is not something that can just be solved with brute force alone.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:We need to actually fund the spaqce program, and the national science foundation. Something which is simply not done. One bomber is the entire budget of the latter organization for an entire year.

And guess what, if it weren't for those bombers you science types would all be in research gulags as guest-hostages of the Soviet State. So don't be so quick to shoot your ignorant mouth off. I don't mean to make this personal but there is far, far more to life than your idyllic veiw from the Ivory Tower.

We have already made a huge strides, how many of those have trickled down to Africa, Asia or South America. Very little. Even below the poverty line is obscenely wealthy and well taken care of to most of the world. We have science and technology to thank for that to be sure. But before we break ourselves for the next breakthrough let's worry about the have nots.

Ah, the have nots. Frankly Storm there is not a whole lot we can do about africa. Just giving them food money etc, is not enough. Their governments are monumentally corrupt, and I seem to remember them going so far as to withhold the food we send to starve their enemies. Fuck, Mugabe removed the property rights of white people in his country at the point of a gun.

They fight among themselves, tribes waging religious wars against one another, christians and muslims stoning each other in the streets of Nigeria, etc. There is nothing we can do with Africa until they sort their own shit out, which will probably involve a few more decades of genocide. Alternatively, we can be imperialists and invade their countries, forcing them to get their act together at the point of a gun. Saddly, we dont have enough troops.

South America is getting its shit together, and eventually will be just fine. Asia, well, they dont suffer the same problems as africa, in a lot of cases it is just a matter of getting Islamic regimes out of power.

The point is, we have to look out for ourselves first. What we can realistically do for those other continents is limited at best, and frankly, most of it just isnt our job. When we can do something, we should, but we cant do everything.

Just for an example, HIV medications. High technology and unavailable to those that need it most. Not because it's impossible but because we can't or won't pay for it. Should we really forget that problem in pursuit of the next Tang or Tefelon or Velcro? Alyrium, to indulge in pure science at the expense of worthwhile programs, in hopes of esoteric benefits later, does a great disservce to the present. There has to be a balance and that might just mean we don't get their as fast as some here would like.

I am not saying we shouldnt find a balance. But science is relatively inexpensive. And the benefits of finding a cure to HIV, far outweigh the benefits of prolonging the disease, just to use an example.

Treating the symptoms of a disease is all well and good, but it is far more useful and cost effective to prevent or cure the disease. Because even with treatment, every last person infected with HIV will die. To do this, biomedical reearch grants need to be increased. To do this we wouldnt even need to cut foreign aid, we could either raise taxes, or *gasp* cut other shit. SHit, we could stop subsidizing recycling and recoup what is it... 8 billion dollars a year?

As for research, what do you think Skylab, Mir, and the ISS are doing? They are being used as labratories for studying that in the best, safest manner possible right now. Which is why I disagree some what with the ignorant opinion that they're doing nothing with them.

Mir no long exists last time I checked, and the ISS is years behind schedule IIRC skylab can only do so much.

Yes, we do. And NASA and others are funding that but it's hideously expensive, very time consuming, and is not something that can just be solved with brute force alone.

Indeed. But then to say something needs to be done, and then cut the funding is, well, moronic.

And unless certain technologies are ready, they'll just be nazi-esque murder for science. When it doesn't work, it doesn't work and trying to force it is just going to cost lives.

Which is why the research into those technologies needs to be funded. It isnt as if people dont vollunteer to go into the space program, and go into space. We need not KILL them. But in order to get technology working, and make sure it works, we need to test it. Hell, we could go to the old standby or rhesus monkeys for the test subjects. Put them in space for a while testing say... a ferris wheel system, or new medication etc etc. Is it expensive? Fuck yeah, but if we want to get it done, the funds need to be invested.

And guess what, if it weren't for those bombers you science types would all be in research gulags as guest-hostages of the Soviet State. So don't be so quick to shoot your ignorant mouth off. I don't mean to make this personal but there is far, far more to life than your idyllic veiw from the Ivory Tower.

I used the bomber as a cost comparison only. Not suggesting we should cut the military budget, that would be foolish. But cutting a few subsidies, or legalizing and taxing the hell out of pot (call it the Sagan Tax just for shits) is not to much to ask methinks.

To bitch and complain about a problem, like HIV, and then not fund the solution to that problem (limited sem cells, no thereaputic cloning et al), moroever, putting road blocks in the way of that solution, as americans are apt to do, is hypocritical and counter-productive.

Ah, the have nots. Frankly Storm there is not a whole lot we can do about africa. Just giving them food money etc, is not enough. Their governments are monumentally corrupt, and I seem to remember them going so far as to withhold the food we send to starve their enemies. Fuck, Mugabe removed the property rights of white people in his country at the point of a gun.

They fight among themselves, tribes waging religious wars against one another, christians and muslims stoning each other in the streets of Nigeria, etc. There is nothing we can do with Africa until they sort their own shit out, which will probably involve a few more decades of genocide. Alternatively, we can be imperialists and invade their countries, forcing them to get their act together at the point of a gun. Saddly, we dont have enough troops.

South America is getting its shit together, and eventually will be just fine. Asia, well, they dont suffer the same problems as africa, in a lot of cases it is just a matter of getting Islamic regimes out of power.

You know what I hear, a lot of excuses to why it's okay to wipe our hands and let people die by the millions. We can't single-handedly save Africa and I have never said that it doesn't have serious problems. But "It's hard" is not sufficient reason to write off hundreds of millions of people.

The point is, we have to look out for ourselves first. What we can realistically do for those other continents is limited at best, and frankly, most of it just isnt our job. When we can do something, we should, but we cant do everything.

Frankly, it's a lot less limited than people like you credit. As for our job, the fuck it isn't. We've interfered in Iraq ostensibly to establish democracy; we've toppled governments in the same of protecting the good of society. We damn well ought to be willing to do what we can now. We took on the responsibility the moment we assumed the mantle of superpower and started telling, forcing even, people to live a certain way.

I am not saying we shouldnt find a balance. But science is relatively inexpensive. And the benefits of finding a cure to HIV, far outweigh the benefits of prolonging the disease, just to use an example.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT SCIENCE ISN'T EXPENSIVE! Get your nose out a goddamned science textbook and look at a budget. Do you know how much get spent trying to cure HIV/AIDS? Do you know how much is spent on cancer? Do you know how much is spent on heart disease? Billions upon billions of dollar of money public, private, and charitable. And guess what, they're not gone. Science, the kind that actually means one damn bit to people's lives, the kind you so self-righteously prattle on about, costs staggering amounts of money and guarentees nothing.

Science is damn expensive. Science may pay off, science may not. Either way trying for it at the expense real progress on present problems is definitely ill advised to say the least.

Mir no long exists last time I checked, and the ISS is years behind schedule IIRC skylab can only do so much.

WHAT THE FUCK? You do realize that skylab is gone, gone gone. It went down in 1979. Before you comment any further please take the time to educate yourself instead of babbling on in ignorance.

Criticism is great, uninformed criticism is just global warming.

Indeed. But then to say something needs to be done, and then cut the funding is, well, moronic.

But supporting an aimless drift (and a bueacratic hydra) for the sake of tradition is equally foolish. NASA needs to stop wasting money of bad ideas and paper pushing before it starts demanding a bigger cut of the public money.

The space program is great, I believe that we should support it. NASA on the other hand is less sterling and produces a lot of waste, little of genuine value, and has been less than agressive in pursuing space travel.

Which is why the research into those technologies needs to be funded. It isnt as if people dont vollunteer to go into the space program, and go into space. We need not KILL them. But in order to get technology working, and make sure it works, we need to test it. Hell, we could go to the old standby or rhesus monkeys for the test subjects. Put them in space for a while testing say... a ferris wheel system, or new medication etc etc. Is it expensive? Fuck yeah, but if we want to get it done, the funds need to be invested.

FUCKING BRILLIANT! WE CAN LEARN SO MUCH FROM DEEP IRRADIATED RHESUS MONKEY!!!! How did NASA ever miss your genius?

This is not a lack of testing; it's we know we don't have a working solution and the egineering still needs lots of work. They test this stuff all the damn time (yes, aboard the shuttle even!) and they fund a good deal of it. What happens is that as we learn more, he find there are more technological problems we have to fix, more health issues to consider, and more human complications that we need to iron out. Despite what people like to think, we haven't reached Mars yet not due to a failure of will (if it were remotely possible NASA would be pimping it like crazy) but the simple fact that it is not realisticly possible. The elements aren't there and the work goes on.

I used the bomber as a cost comparison only. Not suggesting we should cut the military budget, that would be foolish. But cutting a few subsidies, or legalizing and taxing the hell out of pot (call it the Sagan Tax just for shits) is not to much to ask methinks.

And you'll ensure that said politicians will be elected right? Because I'm sure that communities would love when their federal aid dollars dried up. The wheels of government are greased with pig fat, have been since the earliest days and much as we might wish it otherwise it's not going to change. It's all well and good to say cut pork, until you're the one that has to do it, get support for it, and answer to the people from whom you've just taken it.

To bitch and complain about a problem, like HIV, and then not fund the solution to that problem (limited sem cells, no thereaputic cloning et al), moroever, putting road blocks in the way of that solution, as americans are apt to do, is hypocritical and counter-productive.

Buzzwords do not a solution make. You quote a lot but your depth of knowledge on so many things is superficial and you don't even know it.

You know what I hear, a lot of excuses to why it's okay to wipe our hands and let people die by the millions. We can't single-handedly save Africa and I have never said that it doesn't have serious problems. But "It's hard" is not sufficient reason to write off hundreds of millions of people.

"its hard" is more like "its impossible" It does not matter what we do in Africa, short of invading the entire continent, everyone infected with HIV will die. We have not found the resevoirs for things like ebola, and there will continue to be genocide there from now until doomsday. As long as poeople like Mugabe hold power in that continent, they are fucked, and no amount of international aid from any country or countries is going to save them.

Our food aid doesnt do shit, if it never reaches the people it is supposed to help. The money we send does nothing if oit is used to buy a new Yacht.

It is not a matter of writing them off. It is a matter of realizing that we cant fix the problem until their population collapses and we can actually do something there.

Unless you want to start conscripting US citizens, because we do not have the troops necessary to take and hold the entire continent of Africa using volunteers.

Frankly, it's a lot less limited than people like you credit. As for our job, the fuck it isn't. We've interfered in Iraq ostensibly to establish democracy; we've toppled governments in the same of protecting the good of society. We damn well ought to be willing to do what we can now. We took on the responsibility the moment we assumed the mantle of superpower and started telling, forcing even, people to live a certain way.

Iraq is all well and good, and while casualties are low, you have to realize that the occupation of that country is using what? 130 thousand troops? You think a nation in sub-saharan africa is going to be any less unruly? OK, maybe a little bit, but we still dont have the fucking troops.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT SCIENCE ISN'T EXPENSIVE! Get your nose out a goddamned science textbook and look at a budget. Do you know how much get spent trying to cure HIV/AIDS? Do you know how much is spent on cancer? Do you know how much is spent on heart disease? Billions upon billions of dollar of money public, private, and charitable. And guess what, they're not gone. Science, the kind that actually means one damn bit to people's lives, the kind you so self-righteously prattle on about, costs staggering amounts of money and guarentees nothing.

You noticed the term "relative" in that statement right? It isnt exactly the most expensive thing for governments to do. The NCI uses 4.6 billion per year, and last time I checked, the national science foundation uses roughly 2 billion *(dont quote me on that though), and it fundes most non-medical oriented pure research science across the country.

Public funding for HIV was around 19.6 billion, however, only 15% (2.94 b) of that was used to fund research. Most of the rest was used for treatment and housing assitance for people infected.
Heart disease total for 2004 was 2.9 billion last time I checked
Again, in the broad scheme of things, relatively inexpensive, and I would bet money most of that didnt go to research.

On the other hand, recycling subsidies cost 8 billion annually. We could double the amount of research going into that sort of research, if we eliminated one set of subsidies. Just to put things into perspective.

You know, all science means a damn bit to people's lives. Most of it is driven by pure curiosity, and has effects on every single aspect of your existence. If it wasnt for research into genetics, indpendant of cancer research, done in the 50's we wouldnt be were were were today in cancer research. If it wasnt for a scottish physicist, we wouldnt have radio today. Pure research, non-medically oriented stuff, is what drives medical research and engineering. Always has, always will be. Want to study the effects of air pollution? Do a study of lichens. FUCKING LICHENS. It can actually tell you quite a bit.

A little additional funding wouldnt kill us financially. Especially considering we are developing the techniques now which stand the best chance of getting rid of HIV and some forms of cancer. Truth be told, we probably will never find a guaranteed "cure" for cancer. It is a genetic problem that is kinda hard to get rid of with medication. But we will find better treatments for it.

Fuck storm, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on welfare programs which often have the result of creating entire areas dependant on welfare for their economies. We funnel billions of dollars into recycling, and that doesnt do shit.

Nothing besides military spending has a guaranteed benefit. Even the money we spend in foreign aid very rarely actually helps the people we send it to, last time I checked, and dont get me into the so-called benefits of "government programs".

WHAT THE FUCK? You do realize that skylab is gone, gone gone. It went down in 1979. Before you comment any further please take the time to educate yourself instead of babbling on in ignorance.

mmm forgot about that. Addmitedly, I have not done much research into skylab. My focus is indeed on the terrestrial stuff.

Criticism is great, uninformed criticism is just global warming.

I could say something about global climate change, but that is for another thread

But supporting an aimless drift (and a bueacratic hydra) for the sake of tradition is equally foolish. NASA needs to stop wasting money of bad ideas and paper pushing before it starts demanding a bigger cut of the public money.

The space program is great, I believe that we should support it. NASA on the other hand is less sterling and produces a lot of waste, little of genuine value, and has been less than agressive in pursuing space travel.

That I will give you

This is not a lack of testing; it's we know we don't have a working solution and the egineering still needs lots of work. They test this stuff all the damn time (yes, aboard the shuttle even!) and they fund a good deal of it. What happens is that as we learn more, he find there are more technological problems we have to fix, more health issues to consider, and more human complications that we need to iron out. Despite what people like to think, we haven't reached Mars yet not due to a failure of will (if it were remotely possible NASA would be pimping it like crazy) but the simple fact that it is not realisticly possible. The elements aren't there and the work goes on.

Answer one question and you come up with many many more. SUch is the way of the universe. Hell, when Watson and Crick developed the double helix model, there was a massive race to figure out how it replicated. And the more we learn, the more questions arise. That will always be the case, and knowledge will never be perfect. but if we want to get closer to perfect knowledge, we need to persue it. SOrt of like trying to make a more perfect union...

And you'll ensure that said politicians will be elected right? Because I'm sure that communities would love when their federal aid dollars dried up. The wheels of government are greased with pig fat, have been since the earliest days and much as we might wish it otherwise it's not going to change. It's all well and good to say cut pork, until you're the one that has to do it, get support for it, and answer to the people from whom you've just taken it.

Indeed that is true. Pork can never be cleansed, however we can probably get away with cutting a recycling subsidy, or reducing it. It would take shooting Captain Planet and all of his misinformation and lies in order to do it but...

Alternatively, Sin Taxes are your friend. Especially when you cut crime simulteneously in institutiing said sin tax.

It is not a matter of writing them off. It is a matter of realizing that we cant fix the problem until their population collapses and we can actually do something there.

Good to see you've bought into the propoganda of the borderline racist claptrap from the colonial days which has perpetuated the notion that Africa is inherently inferior and they deserve to die in hordes (as opposed to western citizens of course) simply because it would require effort. It's simply a stupid little salve to ease your conciense as millions die.

There are plenty of ways that Africa can be fixed, can be improved, and can enjoy a better standard. Yes it requires Western help but it's by no means impossible or even particularly exhausting.

Unless you want to start conscripting US citizens, because we do not have the troops necessary to take and hold the entire continent of Africa using volunteers.

Ben, that's a horribly ignorant and deluded fantasy. There is plenty we can do; hell we're responsible for a lot of the conditions thanks to our own Cold War policy of setting up strong men. But hey, it's easier to write them off.

Iraq is all well and good, and while casualties are low, you have to realize that the occupation of that country is using what? 130 thousand troops? You think a nation in sub-saharan africa is going to be any less unruly? OK, maybe a little bit, but we still dont have the fucking troops.

Good to see you've met Mr Straw.

The point is for a century or more we've claimed moral authority and responsbility. It's time we started living up to it.

A little additional funding wouldnt kill us financially. Especially considering we are developing the techniques now which stand the best chance of getting rid of HIV and some forms of cancer. Truth be told, we probably will never find a guaranteed "cure" for cancer. It is a genetic problem that is kinda hard to get rid of with medication. But we will find better treatments for it.

I don't intend to hijack this into a side debate on HIV or cancer. But you obviously have missed the point that even science with a pay off (science for curiosity is probably the absolute least priority for a government) is tremendously expensive. It costs a hell of a lot and there is only so much to go around. That what you want doesn't get as much as you'd like doesn't mean much.

Fuck storm, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on welfare programs which often have the result of creating entire areas dependant on welfare for their economies. We funnel billions of dollars into recycling, and that doesnt do shit.

And what do you think when a few million people suddenly lose their only means of support? Try selling that politically, I dare you. It'll never fly because we live in a democracy and those people vote.

Answer one question and you come up with many many more. SUch is the way of the universe. Hell, when Watson and Crick developed the double helix model, there was a massive race to figure out how it replicated. And the more we learn, the more questions arise. That will always be the case, and knowledge will never be perfect. but if we want to get closer to perfect knowledge, we need to persue it. SOrt of like trying to make a more perfect union...

You miss the point. As we understand space better we realize that there are more hazards, more challenges, and some other things that just aren't the way we thought. That means more work needs to be done; Mars isn't Apollo scaled up or is permenent habitation of any sort just a simple step. It's taking time despite the overly optomistic predictions of some, such is the way of the world.

Good to see you've bought into the propoganda of the borderline racist claptrap from the colonial days which has perpetuated the notion that Africa is inherently inferior and they deserve to die in hordes (as opposed to western citizens of course) simply because it would require effort. It's simply a stupid little salve to ease your conciense as millions die.

There are plenty of ways that Africa can be fixed, can be improved, and can enjoy a better standard. Yes it requires Western help but it's by no means impossible or even particularly exhausting.

Then what the hell are we supposed to do? Please, detail a course of action. because the only way I can see is to invade each country in sucession and depose their governments. Other than that, we have to let natural selection take its course, and once the population is smaller and more manageable.

It isnt that they are inherentlyn inferior as people. It is that there are systemic problems which cannot be taken care of easily. Tribalism, corrupt governments, no concept of human rights, lack of basic sanitation, poor environments, locust swarms, and a population to large to feed themselves. The simple matter is, they have exceeded their carrying capacity

Ben, that's a horribly ignorant and deluded fantasy. There is plenty we can do; hell we're responsible for a lot of the conditions thanks to our own Cold War policy of setting up strong men. But hey, it's easier to write them off.

Name some of it. Please, I am listening. You dont think I have tried to think of solutions? One of the best ones I have foun comes from my best friend's plot for world domination. basically you take over the conflict diamond mines and kill off all but one side in the massive genocidal hate-fest there, then use the diamond profits to fund the rebuilding of the rest of the continent (half sarcasm)

Honestly, if the cure to AIDS arrived tomorrow, most people in Africa who have it woulod die because we lack the infastructure and stability there to administer it. We actually do pretty much have to write off those people who are currently infected with HIV. And until we can improve hospital sanitation, which, the lack thereof accunts for around 70% of new HIV cases, last time I checked (some issue or another of Discover Magazine from other last year or the year before) we will have to write off millions more.

We cant feed those people, because of infastructural and foreign governmental issues, we cant give them money directly because they will never recieve it.

The point is for a century or more we've claimed moral authority and responsbility. It's time we started living up to it.

And as much as it pains me to admit it, we have to realize that some problems are to large to solve. If you can point to a course of action which can realistically fix that continent, I am all ears. Consider it a personal challenge to you. If you want, i can even split this into another thread and we can have a bit of fun discussing it.

I don't intend to hijack this into a side debate on HIV or cancer. But you obviously have missed the point that even science with a pay off (science for curiosity is probably the absolute least priority for a government) is tremendously expensive. It costs a hell of a lot and there is only so much to go around. That what you want doesn't get as much as you'd like doesn't mean much.

Agreed with that

(though science for curiosity feeds the science with a "pay off' so I would argue that it could use more public funds... though that could also be my self interest speaking)

And what do you think when a few million people suddenly lose their only means of support? Try selling that politically, I dare you. It'll never fly because we live in a democracy and those people vote.

I was just using it as an example of how funding things with no direct payoff has a precedent to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year

You miss the point. As we understand space better we realize that there are more hazards, more challenges, and some other things that just aren't the way we thought. That means more work needs to be done; Mars isn't Apollo scaled up or is permenent habitation of any sort just a simple step. It's taking time despite the overly optomistic predictions of some, such is the way of the world.

Wholeheartedly agreed. It will take a hell of a lot of work

Then what the hell are we supposed to do? Please, detail a course of action. because the only way I can see is to invade each country in sucession and depose their governments. Other than that, we have to let natural selection take its course, and once the population is smaller and more manageable.

Detailed, I'm not an expert. But there are a lot of general ideas that do make sense and don't require ineffective or corrupt African governments.

1) Research and fund medical treatment for the prevelant diseases in Africa. We can invest in treatments for AIDS, those drugs you deride are proven to help prevent exposed people from becoming infected, prevent pregnancy transmission, which means less people infected. There are also a whole range of tropical diseases which are even more common, less intractable, and yet kill as many or more. And in some cases more is spent on erectile disfunction!

2) Provide education and vocational training in Africa. That's as wide as sexual health to sane reproduction to basic hygiene to advance things like more productive farming to small machinery maintenance. That gives Africa a lot better chance on the ground. Education is scarce and it's one of the major factors in keeping Africa in the state it is, through ignorance and helpless nature.

3) Sanction, hard, Western companies that misbehave in Africa. Companies from Shell to DeBeers have exploited and destablized regions, have funded war and corruption, and generally been a problem rather than a solution. They represent a nasty legacy of colonialism and if we're serious about fixing it we need to stop that sort of damage.

4) Work on solutions for the basic problems. We have an industrial base that's unrivaled and we can help contribute to the building on their infrastructe. A neat example I know of is building pre-fab houses of modules of shipping crates. It actually works great and provides housing in poor areas and diseaster zones alike. Better than nothing.

5) Provide investment not just to governments but private enterprise; and guard them. Again an educated and successful middle class is always the most potent force in politics on a day to day basis. If we can help build that and a real economy that will help.

It isnt that they are inherentlyn inferior as people. It is that there are systemic problems which cannot be taken care of easily. Tribalism, corrupt governments, no concept of human rights, lack of basic sanitation, poor environments, locust swarms, and a population to large to feed themselves. The simple matter is, they have exceeded their carrying capacity

Ben, that sort of attitude, that they're not inferior by nature but are in every other way is not that far removed. It's one that's been fostered unfairly and has contributed to attitudes like yours which amount to fuck them, they brougt it on themselves. That sort of corrosive and hateful attitude has prevented a lot of genuine progress simply because people actively oppose needed aid.

(though science for curiosity feeds the science with a "pay off' so I would argue that it could use more public funds... though that could also be my self interest speaking)

Obviously but science is specialized enough these days that we can tell what's more likely to matter than not.

I was just using it as an example of how funding things with no direct payoff has a precedent to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year

Of course there is some waste, never said there wasn't.

Wholeheartedly agreed. It will take a hell of a lot of work

Yes it will. Which is why I tend to get upset when people suggest that we didn't do those or that in space simply because we didn't want to pay up. Too many dilletantes, and con-men like Sagan, have suggested we can do far more than any one with real expertise agrees.