Capsules are a great idea. Maybe not so much when it comes to hauling cargo, but for manned flight they are better. If there is a problem during launch with a shuttle there isn't much you can really do. A capsule on the other hand can launch off of the rocket stack. A capsule can also get you outside low Earth orbit. The new program was also supposed to have a cargo hauling capability that was unmanned. They were headed in the right direction until cancellation.
There were spacewalks during the Gemini program. If that capability was needed I am sure a capsule can be built to accomodate it. I think that a seperate rocket and system to launch cargo isn't neccesarily a bad idea. You won't need all the life support systems on board which makes things much simpler and probably cheaper. Why haul humans up if you don't need to? The shuttle was supposed to be "cheap" and reusable with a quick turn around time. It was neither in reality.
Well sadly, at least here, most people are more interested in Facebook, smart phones, and what's on TV to be bothered to be interested in other things that might really matter.
The sad thing is that almost half of Americans think that space exploration DOESNT matter. I got into a nasty "debate" with my step mom who said more or less that NASA is worthless.
Yep. That attitude is quite common. People would be surprised at the amount of things in their daily lives in which space had something to do with its development. I understand with a bum economy why people don't see the need to spend money on it but there are other ways to cut back such as foreign aid.The sad thing is that almost half of Americans think that space exploration DOESNT matter. I got into a nasty "debate" with my step mom who said more or less that NASA is worthless.
The last year in which a budget surplus, $23 billion, was claimed was as recently as 2000 during Clinton's last year in office. However, higher finance is much like religion in that it can take the same sources to make opposite conclusions and some Republicans have argued that there was, in fact a defecit in that year. Fortunately, just about everyone agrees that we have had deficits ever since which are likely to continue through my lifetime. I have refused to bail them out any longer.I say tax the multi-billion dollar a year PROFIT makers of the oil industry to fund the program. I don't really get how we can be one of the most debt-ridden countries and considered to be one of the wealthiest. The country is getting more indebted, yet we can't ask for a portion of the billions of dollars in profit from the oil industry? I want my taxes reduced, but I don't make a billion. I think the US SHOULD expect more from taxes and not less when billions are made in profit. Just my opinion, but this country could be put on a more true course if it only demanded more taxes on overall profit and stopped throwing "borrowed" money (which we can't afford) to support other countries "in need". When was the last time this country had a national surplus, rather than national debt? BS BS BS
Oh, what a lot of work you make for m, Rick. I missed this post until Grant quoted it with approval, and i think that someone else endorsed yr sentiments. I found myself in strong disagreement, even when I realized that by "here" you meant the U.S, rather than the forum, and since I have a tendency to be rebarbative in debate (what's that? You never noticed?
) off I trudged with Tucker to get Sunny's take on it. we both test out somewhat brighter than average, and we enjoy the same spectrum disorder so I generally trust her reasoning even if I don't share her opinion..You're correct in that some people don't care but yet are taxed to support the program and they don't agree with that. I believe there are many worse things to be taxed for. I don't really care for paying taxes for schools since I have no children, but I still am required to. I am not being condescending nor do I think I am somehow better than those who don't share the interest in space. But I do find it sad that many people don't understand the purpose behind such research. I disagree with your statement, "it was conceived as a Cold War propaganda device." Really? You actually believe that? Now it may have gotten its start due to the competition with the Soviets, but I don't think your statement is really accurate.Oh, what a lot of work you make for m, Rick. I missed this post until Grant quoted it with approval, and i think that someone else endorsed yr sentiments. I found myself in strong disagreement, even when I realized that by "here" you meant the U.S, rather than the forum, and since I have a tendency to be rebarbative in debate (what's that? You never noticed?
She agreed with you. "Of course most people are more interested in Facebook, Smartphones and TV than in the NASA program", and that is a major reason why they are thriving as the NASA program goes down the tubes.She also pointed out, that unlike Facebook and the rest, the NASA program is supported by our taxes. What is it called when people are taxed for things in which thy are not interested in and on which they are not consulted? That's right, taxation without representation, and we all know what that leads to.
Neither of us watches much TV, and though she explains things to me like "bumps" and "Mafia Wars" neither of us spends much time on Facebook, but her Droid is her pride and joy and she pointed out that while a mechanical defect in her phone would "ruin my social life" at least it wouldn't kill her -- remember the faulty O ring, remember the wrongly applied insulation panels? I'm sure that the families of the 16 men and women killed due to those errors do. People don't die "in the name of science" or to "save our American [british, German, Vietnamese] way of life"; they just die and hate every moment of it.
I asked her what she thought of the "scientific improvements in our lives" that the program has brought about. Her mom had just bought a cordless drill from Harbor Freight, so she remembered that one, and I have used those lightweight thermal blankets when camping and there is a baby food which uses "space technology" in its formula (I wonder how baby's managed before that?) and we found a few more on Google, but we couldn't find out how many millions each application had cost.
Most importantly, we reflected on the fact that we are prone to intense interests in strange subjects like mantids, anime, and the Victorian British Army, but we have no illusions that anyone else should be interested in them or that our personal interests give us any moral or intellectual superiority. and that is the impression that I got from your post. Was I wrong?
Say I were to state the following:
"Karl Popper's dictum on falsifiability as a criterion of a scientific theory is still regurgitated by introductory college texts on Biology whose authors appear to have no familiarity with his own corollary of that statement, that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program." It is a pity that many undergraduates are more interested in frat parties and dating than in understanding the fundamental elements of their subject."
Doesn't that appear a little heavy, perhaps even a little condescending?
Sunny says that she doesn't care one way or the other about the program, though she has no illusions that the money saved will find its way back to the American public. I take the more extreme view that it was conceived as a Cold War propaganda device which costs far more than it provides for the tax payers who support it and that though it has contributed much to science, it has long reached the point of diminishing returns, and there is no justification for the expense of continuing it.
Tucker also agrees with you, though. Laika is one of his heroes.
