Because it is Rocket Science

[Briscoeteque]

[huh]



Whoa! I'm not sarcastic at all. I'm dazzled. I had no idea that any planet other than Saturn had rings. That is good science - I don't think the article mentions funding at all does it? :whistling

-dixon cannon

SETI is a private organization that relies on donations. They're the guys who found the rings and the new moons. However, they would not have been able to do this, had they not used the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope can see things clearer than any telescope ever could on earth, because it doesn't have to look through the atmosphere, which is quite more opaque than one would think. The organization that put the device up there? The government, with taxpayer dollars.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Say no more!

Pilot Mike Melvill and SpaceShip One :eusa_clap

-dixon cannon

 

["Doc" Devereux]

SETI is a private organization that relies on donations. They're the guys who found the rings and the new moons. However, they would not have been able to do this, had they not used the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope can see things clearer than any telescope ever could on earth, because it doesn't have to look through the atmosphere, which is quite more opaque than one would think. The organization that put the device up there? The government, with taxpayer dollars.

Several governments, as it happens: the US Congress waited until the ESA committed to part-funding the project before they weighed in with your tax dollars.

 

[jamespowers]

Yep, the hubble telescope was made with tax dollars. Makes sense. It was a total failure in its initial form. It cost more than they said it would, didn't do what they said it would and took longer to get right than they said it would---definitely a government project.
Finally they had to go up and replace the screwed up lens and adjust it. THEN it worked. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Thank you James Powers!....

Yep, the hubble telescope was made with tax dollars. Makes sense. It was a total failure in its initial form. It cost more than they said it would, didn't do what they said it would and took longer to get right than they said it would---definitely a government project.
Finally they had to go up and replace the screwed up lens and adjust it. THEN it worked. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

I didn't want to have to say that! :eusa_clap

-dixon cannon

 

[jamespowers]

I can't resist the chance to quote this section and make this point: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT STEALING YOUR MONEY. You and I both are paying taxes for some expenditures we agree with, and some we don't. The taxes you pay are assessed as per US law, and the expenditures are those your representatives - and mine - have voted on and endorsed. It's all legal.

You disagree with how some of this money (not all) is being spent, and as you have already noted, you are taking individual and group action to challenge and change that expenditure. That's great, and I appreciate that action...it's your right and responsibility to act.

But let's keep our discussion accurate in this respect: NO ONE is stealing your tax money, and just because you disagree with how some of it is spent doesn't make it theft.

If they're not stealing my tax money to pour into Iraq (and they're not - I just disagree with how it's being used), they're sure not stealing yours to support the space program.

This is not my fight but I might as well straighten out a few terms here:
Steal: (transitive) To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away.
The government agents stole my money.
Three irreplaceable paintings were stolen from the gallery.
Theft: The act of stealing property.

Based on the definition it is stealing because it is taking "without the owner's permission." Don't pay your income taxes---end up in jail. Don't pay your property taxes, they will "steal" your house and sell it for the tax money. Let's not fool ourselves. It is stealing and theft in the true dictionary terms. The fact that they are likely to have a gun when they come to get you reinforces this point. You give up the money just the same as if a thief pulled a gun on you and stole whatever they wanted.
Agree or disagree with where the money is going. Theft is theft and stealing is still stealing. [huh] I am not giving it to them willingly. I am being coerced one way or the other.

Regards,

J

 

[Dixon Cannon]

You Sir, are a faith restorer!...

This is not my fight but I might as well straighten out a few terms here:
Steal: (transitive) To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away.
The government agents stole my money.
Three irreplaceable paintings were stolen from the gallery.
Theft: The act of stealing property.

Based on the definition it is stealing because it is taking "without the owner's permission." Don't pay your income taxes---end up in jail. Don't pay your property taxes, they will "steal" your house and sell it for the tax money. Let's not fool ourselves. It is stealing and theft in the true dictionary terms. The fact that they are likely to have a gun when they come to get you reinforces this point. You give up they money just the same as if a thief pulled a gun on you and stole whatever they wanted.
Agree or disagree with where the money is going. Theft is theft and stealing is still stealing. [huh] I am not giving it to them willingly. I am being coerced one way or the other.

Regards,

J

jamespowers GET'S IT! :eusa_clap

 

[Briscoeteque]

Yep, the hubble telescope was made with tax dollars. Makes sense. It was a total failure in its initial form. It cost more than they said it would, didn't do what they said it would and took longer to get right than they said it would---definitely a government project.
Finally they had to go up and replace the screwed up lens and adjust it. THEN it worked. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

And now it's a complete success, and helping scientists in ways that was previously impossible. Again, the solution to these problems isn't 'cut all of the funding and let the private sector do it' because sometimes great things cost money and aren't profitable. The private sector would never have done it, because how is space discovery profitable, and knowing a bunch of scientists, even if they all just got together, they could never have afforded it. The solution is 'reform goverment agencies so they do what they were designed to do'.

I don't get all the hate for taxes. If you don't like paying them, like everyone else in the civilized world, because they are essential for civilization, you can always go find some Sentinelese and leave it all behind. So it's stealing. It's stealing that makes our way of life possible. Get the private sector to maintain roads, see how that works out.

 

[jamespowers]

And now it's a complete success, and helping scientists in ways that was previously impossible. Again, the solution to these problems isn't 'cut all of the funding and let the private sector do it' because sometimes great things cost money and aren't profitable. The private sector would never have done it, because how is space discovery profitable, and knowing a bunch of scientists, even if they all just got together, they could never have afforded it. The solution is 'reform goverment agencies so they do what they were designed to do'.

My point was that a private business contracted by the government---not government workers all---would have gotten it right the first time because they wouldn't want to go up there and fix it again.
There is no way to reform government agencies so they do what they were designed to do. They were never designed to work right in the first place. They were never required to account for money, materials and time. When is the last time you looked at a GAPI balance sheet for NASA or any other Federal Government agency? Never.
The ridiculous thing was that even when my father worked for the defense department, there were structural problems that made them spend money so they would get more next year! His department would literally make money every year but he was required to spend it on new tools they didn't need or equipment they had twenty of already. :eusa_doh:
After he left, it only got worse. Until you have seen the way government works, you are just ont he outside looking at the government the same way people who eat sausage look at their franks. They have no idea what went into them or how they were made.

Regards,

J

 

[jamespowers]

I don't get all the hate for taxes. If you don't like paying them, like everyone else in the civilized world, because they are essential for civilization, you can always go find some Sentinelese and leave it all behind. So it's stealing. It's stealing that makes our way of life possible. Get the private sector to maintain roads, see how that works out.

Since you added this as an afterthought, I'll respond to it separately. I didn't say I hate taxes although I do. So its stealing!? I suggest you don't go walking across Central Park past midnight if you have that blase attitude toward theft. Think about the whole idea that stealing makes our way of life possible. Do you really believe that and to what extent do we take that? So its murder. Its murder that makes our life possible. :eusa_doh:
Roads are privately maintained all over this country. Have you ever seen a toll road in Florida, and many eastern states? Yeah, they are privately maintained and are better maintained than the roads CalTrans maintains out here with six foot weeds along the shoulder. State governments are even selling the roads to private companies lately. Lord knows they would sell anything if they could. The problem with that is who gets the money. We collectively paid for it. Do we all get a share when they are sold? No, of course not. They pocket it and blow it somewhere else. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

NASA's budget of $14B, thus, represented only about 0.8% of total federal expenditures during FY '99. In fact, since 1975 NASA's budget has varied only between 0.7% and 1.0% of total federal expenditures. NASA's highest ever share of total federal expenditures was 5.5%, which occurred in 1966.

Many other interesting comparisons can be made:

Microsoft's corporate revenues in 1998 were roughly the same as NASA's budget that year.

NASA's budget is roughly the same size as the budgets of each of the following states: Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee.

The federal government spends over 30 times as much money on Social Security as it does on NASA.

Americans spent over 19 times as much at restaurants in 1997 as the federal government spent on NASA that year.

NASA's budget represents approximately 0.2% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.


I think it's worth it.

 

[jamespowers]

NASA's budget of $14B, thus, represented only about 0.8% of total federal expenditures during FY '99.

$14,000,000,000 here $14,000,000,000 there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

That's only $47 a person. Can't hardly buy a good vintage fedora for that .

 

[jamespowers]

That's only $47 a person. Can't hardly buy a good vintage fedora for that .

Gee, since you are being so magnanimous with money, send me the $47 and get a few hundred million other people to do the same.
The fact is that is money for research and development, capital and other funding that could just as easily be contracted out to private industry for and not have government money compete with private investment. That would be money without strings and a bureaucracy that could actually make a difference in space exploration. NASA can't employ every scientist who has promise and ideas that could lead to real and plausible space exploration.
Gee, even Russia will take money from individuals who want to go out into space to supplement their programs. [huh] I am not against funding space exploration I just question how it is done now. What planet or moon have they gone to lately? I want to see people on Mars---not machines. At this current pace, it will take them another 100 years to figure it out. Surely some scientists who are struggling out there could do it in less time. [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I find it very interesting that...

Matt's original question has been totally ignored for a debate of spending any money on space at all.

His question was:

"Now here is the question. Seeing as this project cost billions. Should we focus that money on sending more people to the moon, or sending out more probes like this to learn about whats out there?

Seems to be a conundrum between manned exploration and robot exploration. One slows down our ability to learn. The other is more exciting.

What should we do?"

So how about some debate on this? Opinions of manned space vs more robotic based missions?

 

[Pilgrim]

"Steal: (transitive) To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away."

Based on the definition it is stealing because it is taking "without the owner's permission." Don't pay your income taxes---end up in jail. Don't pay your property taxes, they will "steal" your house and sell it for the tax money. Let's not fool ourselves. It is stealing and theft in the true dictionary terms.
J

James, I respectfully disagree with you and Dixon 100% in terms of the terminology you use. Taxes spent on NASA and other federal programs do NOT require, nor or they subject to, your (or my) direct, individual permission. That is a completely false assertion.

You HAVE given your permission for these taxes and expenditures (as I have) through your directly elected representative. Neither of us are allowed to decide which taxes we'll pay and which we won't - our representatives determine them and we're stuck with them until we (like Dixon) communicate as individuals and/or organize as a group to effect change in tax policy through those representatives. But it's legal because our legally elected representatives have authorized it. I see no possible argument. This is absolutely not theft under the definition you selected.

You and Dixon may be taking energetic, appropriate action to make changes in taxes and their expenditures; but the test is for all of our representatives vote and change the laws. Until that point, things are as they are. I am taking my own action by suporting candidates with priorities I support.

With the same emphasis you use in referring to the space program, I could assert that the gummint has stolen my money to spend it on nummer, tanks, aircraft, munitions and troops used in Iraq, and I could complain they have no right to do it. That doesn't make me right; in fact, I would be be 100% wrong. The only difference is which federal expenditure I might object to.

Some folks object to a range of social programs. Some object to the military. Some object to the space program. Some object to foreign aid. Some object to federal support for K-12 education. But none of us have the individual right to withhold taxes or direct the expenditure of taxes where we want them spent.

That is a great challenge within our governmental structure; getting enough agreement on such things as necessary and appropriate levels of taxation and how those taxes are to be spent.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Gee, since you are being so magnanimous with money, send me the $47 and get a few hundred million other people to do the same.
The fact is that is money for research and development, capital and other funding that could just as easily be contracted out to private industry for and not have government money compete with private investment. That would be money without strings and a bureaucracy that could actually make a difference in space exploration. NASA can't employ every scientist who has promise and ideas that could lead to real and plausible space exploration.
Gee, even Russia will take money from individuals who want to go out into space to supplement their programs. [huh] I am not against funding space exploration I just question how it is done now. What planet or moon have they gone to lately? I want to see people on Mars---not machines. At this current pace, it will take them another 100 years to figure it out. Surely some scientists who are struggling out there could do it in less time. [huh]

Regards,

J

I read a recent article in Discover magazine, (June issue, I think) that nixed the whole idea of going to Mars. A round trip to Mars is something like 18 months. Way too long a time for astronauts to be exposed to cosmic radiation. We are protected here on earth by the planet's magnetic field, but a space vehicle exposed for any great length of time would need lead shielding or a jacket of water 6 feet thick in order to block the radiation. Unless somebody comes up with an answer to this problem, it doesn't look like we will be going there any time soon. Unmanned probes is really all we can safely do at this point.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/17feb_radiation.htm

 

[jamespowers]

James, I respectfully disagree with you and Dixon 100% in terms of the terminology you use. Taxes spent on NASA and other federal programs do NOT require, nor or they subject to, your (or my) direct, individual permission. That is a completely false assertion.

You HAVE given your permission for these taxes and expenditures (as I have) through your directly elected representative. Neither of us are allowed to decide which taxes we'll pay and which we won't - our representatives determine them and we're stuck with them until we (like Dixon) communicate as individuals and/or organize as a group to effect change in tax policy through those representatives. But it's legal because our legally elected representatives have authorized it. I see no possible argument. This is absolutely not theft under the definition you selected.

You and Dixon may be taking energetic, appropriate action to make changes in taxes and their expenditures; but the test is for all of our representatives vote and change the laws. Until that point, things are as they are. I am taking my own action by suporting

With the same emphasis you use in referring to the space program, I could assert that the gummint has stolen my money to spend it on nummer, tanks, aircraft, munitions and troops used in Iraq, and I could complain they have no right to do it. That doesn't make me right; in fact, I would be be 100% wrong. The only difference is which federal expenditure I might object to.

Some folks object to a range of social programs. Some object to the military. Some object to the space program. Some object to foreign aid. Some object to federal support for K-12 education. But none of us have the individual right to withhold taxes or direct the expenditure of taxes where we want them spent.

That is a great challenge within our governmental structure; getting enough agreement on such things as necessary and appropriate levels of taxation and how those taxes are to be spent.

I think you need to take a look at the definition again. I have never given anyone permission to take a portion of my income nor for me to pay any other kind of tax. It is purely based on coercion. Let me try this: I DID NOT SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OF ANY PROGRAM OR THAT WE SHOULD PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT OUR MONEY IS USED FOR. That is straightened out now.
I simply said that the government is stealing and thieving from the citizens based on the meaning of the words. Denying it is simply denying words mean things. Without my permission they are taking my money through coercion and will take my property by force if I do not pay the taxes. That is stealing and theft by definition. What else would you like to call it? [huh]
At least you admit that they are stealing from you for military spending. Now you need to admit it in general.


Regards,

J

 

[jamespowers]

I read a recent article in Discover magazine, (June issue, I think) that nixed the whole idea of going to Mars. A round trip to Mars is something like 18 months. Way too long a time for astronauts to be exposed to cosmic radiation. We are protected here on earth by the planet's magnetic field, but a space vehicle exposed for any great length of time would need lead shielding or a jacket of water 6 feet thick in order to block the radiation. Unless somebody comes up with an answer to this problem, it doesn't look like we will be going there any time soon. Unmanned probes is really all we can safely do at this point.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/17feb_radiation.htm

All of this is true but should we give up or try to find ways to compensate for time and radiation exposure? I am sure there is a solution but it might take a while and a whole lot of scientists to figure it out. I still want manned space exploration as opposed to machines. There is only so much a machine can accomplish before we have to get our hands dirty.
We also might need that planet someday if an asteroid or meteor hits the eatrh. Makes sense to have an alternative developed just in case.

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Matt's original question has been totally ignored for a debate of spending any money on space at all.

His question was:

"Now here is the question. Seeing as this project cost billions. Should we focus that money on sending more people to the moon, or sending out more probes like this to learn about whats out there?

Seems to be a conundrum between manned exploration and robot exploration. One slows down our ability to learn. The other is more exciting.

What should we do?"

So how about some debate on this? Opinions of manned space vs more robotic based missions?

I think a mix of manned and robotic is best. Robotic is great for collecting data were it's still too difficult to send people. And we need manned mostly for the "flags and footprints" to keep people inspired.

And the chances of NASA going away is about as likely as the IRS going away. Every state including D.C. get something from the space prgram budget.