PDA

View Full Version : Why we should support Science



Cigar
12-03-2012, 02:53 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526810_506016039419412_1902404445_n.jpg

Chris
12-03-2012, 02:56 PM
NASA as science is a categorical error. I support science, and the technology the OP is about, but question government's contribution.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 02:58 PM
Egg heads like Cigar analyzed the economic benefits of the Apollo program and number crunched a 26:1 profit. There was more, but the technology advances got so spread out into the economy that they couldn't reliably crunch the numbers further.

Cigar
12-03-2012, 03:03 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/68260_503699042984445_264304351_n.jpg


BTW ... something else to chew on

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602569_503379823016367_742841604_n.png

Cigar
12-03-2012, 03:07 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/177680_502600096427673_1018857406_o.jpg

Chris
12-03-2012, 03:07 PM
You even got trolling your own threads down to a science. Peter made a good point for your side of the argument but you've trashed the discussion already.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 03:12 PM
oops

Chris
12-03-2012, 03:16 PM
Egg heads like Cigar analyzed the economic benefits of the Apollo program and number crunched a 26:1 profit. There was more, but the technology advances got so spread out into the economy that they couldn't reliably crunch the numbers further.

Let's see if we can ignore the trolling.

That's a good point. Government-funded science and technology has benefited many.

But who's to say that science wouldn't have been researched and that technology developed privately? Private R&D goes on all the time.

And, moreover, who's to say government-based R&D didn't cost us a hell of a lot more than private would have? So why does a NASA tool bag cost $100,000? (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/11/so-why-does-a-n.html)

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 03:29 PM
Let's see if we can ignore the trolling.

That's a good point. Government-funded science and technology has benefited many.

But who's to say that science wouldn't have been researched and that technology developed privately? Private R&D goes on all the time.

And, moreover, who's to say government-based R&D didn't cost us a hell of a lot more than private would have? So why does a NASA tool bag cost $100,000? (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/11/so-why-does-a-n.html)

Apollo was a response to Kennedy's call for putting a man on the moon within the decade. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I am sure that the government wasted money in achieving this. But I doubt that private enterprise could have safely done it until the method had been proven. Would a private company have put quarantine procedures in place to protect the earth from any possible returning virus? It is like today, we cannot have private companies fly out and pull asteroids back to low earth orbit. Surly that could easily lead to a disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuW4oGKzVKc

Cigar
12-03-2012, 03:33 PM
Egg heads like Cigar analyzed the economic benefits of the Apollo program and number crunched a 26:1 profit. There was more, but the technology advances got so spread out into the economy that they couldn't reliably crunch the numbers further.

Example:

Most aeronautical advancements are tested and verified first in government environments, before retest and re-verified in the private sector.

From my firsthand experiences.

Cigar
12-03-2012, 03:35 PM
Apollo was a response to Kennedy's call for putting a man on the moon within the decade. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I am sure that the government wasted money in achieving this. But I doubt that private enterprise could have safely done it until the method had been proven. Would a private company have put quarantine procedures in place to protect the earth from any possible returning virus? It is like today, we cannot have private companies fly out and pull asteroids back to low earth orbit. Surly that could easily lead to a disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuW4oGKzVKc

We still waist money ... if you want to call it waist. Sometimes safety as any price gets you safe technology.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 03:36 PM
Even considering any waste, the economy realized a 26:1 benefit as I said above.

Chris
12-03-2012, 03:37 PM
Apollo was a response to Kennedy's call for putting a man on the moon within the decade. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I am sure that the government wasted money in achieving this. But I doubt that private enterprise could have safely done it until the method had been proven. Would a private company have put quarantine procedures in place to protect the earth from any possible returning virus? It is like today, we cannot have private companies fly out and pull asteroids back to low earth orbit. Surly that could easily lead to a disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuW4oGKzVKc

Right, we don't know the answers to those questions because we've rushed to the conclusion government needs to do it.

Peter1469
12-03-2012, 05:17 PM
And now that we have tamed low earth orbit we are turning it over to the private sector. The government should now focus on Mars and the asteroid belt. When we tame that, it should go to the private sector.

corrocamino
12-03-2012, 07:05 PM
My former son-in-law was a physicist. He had lent me a book about some aspect of physics (semi-popular, so that he thought I might be able to read it with some minimal understanding). Asked if I had yet read it, I replied sardonically, "No. What has physics ever done for me?" As he shook his head in resignation, my ex-wife exclaimed (to me), "Why, it was physics that drew us together!" To my son-in-law I said, "I rest my case."

corrocamino
12-04-2012, 05:32 AM
But, seriously, folks....

We have no choice in the matter of supporting science (or in most other matters, for that matter). Scientific research either is paid for through taxes, or through retail cost of derivative (pardon the term!) products/services offered by companies conducting private research, or both. In the end, we (the more or less common man) pay for...everything. The cushiest job in the world is uni professor with tenure. I've rubbed social elbows with quite a few such blokes, including one who studied moths and their evolved mechanisms for avoiding predation by bats (echo-location back atcha); his research somehow required him to travel with his non-researcher amour to Tahiti several times over a period of years, not to mention other coincidentally tourist-friendly locales. I suppose it was in the good cause of stealth-moth technology -- military research. And good moths are simply where you find them, I suppose. All beyond my ken -- and bailiwick -- of course. :>)

Adelaide
12-04-2012, 05:43 AM
Egg heads like Cigar analyzed the economic benefits of the Apollo program and number crunched a 26:1 profit. There was more, but the technology advances got so spread out into the economy that they couldn't reliably crunch the numbers further.

Not to mention, with the specific discovery in the OP, there were probably dozens or perhaps hundreds or thousands of digital imaging/technology companies working on it or similar technology already. Government money was probably not required for the discovery, so even though there have been some great technological advances coming out of NASA we've reached a point where private tech companies are able to take that torch and run with it.

The government could/should encourage those companies with grants or whatnot, but I'm not sure that NASA is essential in making advancements.

corrocamino
12-04-2012, 05:51 AM
"I'm not sure that NASA is essential in making advancements."

NASA, besides being technological and scientific, is bureaucratic. Bureaucratic departments are empires that might well be described as feudal. Wealth (funding, salaries) and fame accrue to the barons. NASA continues to play and re-play the in-search-of-life-on-other-planets card with effect. It's quite fascinating, and some technological advancements are made in the process, but....

My guess is that the discovery of extramundane organic molecules (already accomplished in comets) will be the peak achievement. My other guess is that man will never set foot on Mars. Simply too expensive, and robots can do it all anyway.

Cigar
12-04-2012, 09:33 AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/408102_498340793520270_1090845078_n.jpg

GrumpyDog
12-07-2012, 10:29 PM
Clear braces alone, is enough to convince me.

Mister D
12-07-2012, 10:30 PM
Clear braces alone, is enough to convince me.

What about nuclear weapons?

Peter1469
12-07-2012, 11:41 PM
The left does cry that the religious want to destroy man on earth; yet it was science that gave them the means to do it.

Chloe
12-12-2012, 11:09 AM
The left does cry that the religious want to destroy man on earth; yet it was science that gave them the means to do it.

Most scientist regret the research they did that led to how those advancements are now being used.

roadmaster
12-12-2012, 05:05 PM
Science is good to some degree. From helping the sick to new technology. Talking to an elder years ago when her family witnessed an airplane she thought the world was coming to the end.:grin: We didn't have computers or cell phones when I was young. The only phone we had was a party-line in which if you picked the phone up sometimes others would be talking to each other. You had to hang up and wait for them to finish talking.

Chris
12-12-2012, 05:21 PM
I remember party lines growing up. But everyone knew each other so you just ended up joining in the conversation whatever it was.

roadmaster
12-12-2012, 05:38 PM
I remember party lines growing up. But everyone knew each other so you just ended up joining in the conversation whatever it was.

Lol I was glad when we got our own line. Two elderly women would talk for hours. Then sometimes it was hard to know if someone was listening in.

Peter1469
12-12-2012, 07:09 PM
Most scientist regret the research they did that led to how those advancements are now being used.

The ones working on the Manhattan Project knew exactly what they were doing and why.