Shadowy Man

A few things:

NASA receives at most 0.5% of the U.S. national budget. That is for both manned and unmanned projects.

The unmanned program at NASA, which includes everything from interplanetary probes like Galileo and Cassini all the way down to sounding rockets and basic instrument development, is about science.

The manned program at NASA is not about science; it is about exploration. I'm not sure why NASA doesn't openly admit to this.

So, we shouldn't really be arguing the merits of the Shuttle or the ISS on the basis of science, because that's not what it is about. If you feel that space exploration isn't worth the third of a percent or so of the national budget then that's a different argument.

Hey, we could be using that money to buy a couple more stealth bombers.

Demosthenes

I'm curious about why the federal government is the only allowed entity to conduct manned exploration? Won't it make more sense in terms of economics to allow private companies and individuals to develop the technology and infrastructure with any necessary oversights? For example, when the new world was first discovered, The English government didn't exclusively explore and establish colonies in America, what it did was to give charters to people and turned them loose on the wilderness of America. The Crown then came along to collect the profits and goodies that were the secondary results of the colonial activities. The government didn't build exclusive and limited number of vehicles(a.k.a the shuttles) to explore the shores and established an federal or international building(a.k.a the ISS) instead, it just took advantage of a natural resource, people's creativity, curiosity, and ambition.

When I see the NASA "explore" space, what I see isn't a nimble person climbing the ladder of achievement and destiny. Instead I see an elephant making it's way painfully and slowly up the ladder. I understand the purpose of NASA and I support it heartly, but honestly, I think it can be done a hundred times faster, efficently, and better than NASA.

It's hard to get off earth and into space, but when you get there, it gets surprisingly easy, assuming of course that you have the necessary technologies.

Shadowy Man

I think it is a question of vision. Space exploration is a very long term investment, and it may take a very long time before it becomes profitable.

Which companies do you see being interested in developing space exploration? How many of them are willing to put an enormous amount of capital into the endeavor without any near-term bottom line?

I'm not saying that the way that NASA is doing it is the best, but I'm not sure I see enough of an incentive for companies.

Feather

There's a difference between using semantics to obfuscate and using semantics to clear up ambiguous meaning, S.P.

When I hear the words "real-world" it is usually out of the mouth of the woefully ignorant. My point was to get to whether you are just woefully ignorant, or whether you are simply more concerned with things seemingly unrelated to the (manned) space program here on earth.

It is not a matter of my opinion, deary.

Yes. And technological goods. The article you linked summarily discounts the "spinoff" publication as a farce, yet provides little convincing argument to do so. I'm glancing through a list of things in the spinoff publication

The article makes the correct claim that each shuttle would have to have produced some $4 billion in benefit in order for the "six fold return" claim to hold true. But then it makes the absurd, argument from ignorance claim that because the admittedly far-reaching and pervasive effects of spinoffs due to shuttle prompted research haven't been measured that the primary claim is incorrect. Neither claim can be logically validated without a measurement. But the least you could do is supply the same dose of skepticism to your linked article as you seem inclined to supply the nature of manned space missions.

On what basis do you make this judgement? You must have some detailed knowledge of the process of experiment and the capabilities of robots today in order to make such a claim. If the linked article and a non-technical popular debunking book is all you are going by here I will be somewhat disappointed.

Aside from that, you're unjustifiably narrowing the field and ignoring other relevant details (such as the spinoffs). Why restrict a discussion of manned spaceflight to only the scientific virtue of the experiments performed directly on missions?

If your objective is to be rid of manned spaceflight solely on the basis of scientific virtue, then you ought to consider all the science related advances made possible by the program, rather than a narrow restriction to one particular aspect.


Strawmen. I never claimed you aren't allowed to defend your opinions with arguments. Nor did I ever claim that all opinions are equal (or unequal, for that matter).

Based solely on the article (I've not read the book), I'd say you're full of it, just like the author of the article is full of it.

I will have to read the cited book to make a final determination, though.

My opinion hardly needs a defense: you are the one making the positive claim in the first place, and in the second the evidence that the manned (and unmanned) space program is scientifically worthwhile is contained all over the place--try not summarily discounting the Spinoff publication as bunk, in addition to not restricting the scientific virtue to an extent that excludes science advances performed external to the missions themselves.


Now to address this:

Let's see....

(emphasis added)

and:

(emphasis added)

and:

(emphasis added)

and:

(Poll choice)


You don't want emotional responses, and yet you feel free to ridicule and exaggerate/mischaracterize others' positions to this degree? Shameful, to say the least.

Pardon me while I scoff at your hypocrisy. Respect is a two way street.

You'll notice I never ridiculed your opinion as being wrong, nor have I flippantly dismissed it. Despite the fact that you seem to have done so with my opinion before you even started the thread. It's certainly more respect than you deserve, in my opinion.

Now, why don't we drop the pretense that you are actually interested in hearing dissenting opinion. Or, if you like, you can actually start behaving as though you do and keep your petty insults to yourself.

Wyz_sub10

Secular Pinoy and Feather,

Now that you have both confirmed a desire to address the issue, rather than attack the individual, we can move on and not let this become a flame war.

Thanks in advance.

Secular Pinoy

Yet you follow it up with...
(emphasis mine) So it's actually your preference not to hear the words I used. Anything else about this is mere baggage.

That's your opinion.
Little convincing arguments to you. At least he, and I, am willing to provide arguments for our opinions. That's what skepticism is all about.
Ah, at last, something of substance, I appreciate that (even if you don't believe me). Yes measurements are lacking, but both of us have reached diverging opinions even without it. I would like to see your positive argumments why you hold the opinions that you do. I hope you can tell me of the major scientific merits of the shuttle missions. Or isn't that the reason for having and using the shuttles? I have, that's why I sent it here in SciSkep, because I want someone else to see what my biased eyes may not be able to. Do you routinely send your opinions into this lion's den of skeptics? I recently voiced my strong opinions against Dawkins'(and my pro-Gould/Eldredge) view of gene-centrism in the Evo/Cre forum, where I know the majority will be against it. I know my biases, and I revised my opinions after hearing better arguments from competent people. That's proper skepticism. But seeing that's most critics of my arguments here do not wish to hazard any positive claims, I'm not being impressed. You could show my arguments may be lacking, but without your own positive claims, I will not learn anything.
We have to start somewhere. I am here to learn, to test my opinions against skeptics. I have made a non-extraordinary claim, so I do not require extraordinary evidences. You might be disappointed with my sources, but I note that you have not made any references to your arguments. Negative skepticism is getting old in II, don't you think? We might be happy criticizing others, while hiding our cards, but why don't we try something positive for a change? I am willing to hear your side of the argument.

And this elitist aversion to a non-technical book? I assume you'll always use peer-reviewd articles against creationists, new-age hokum, and fringe scientists? I always want to start with what's easy, then go to meatier stuff.
I have not restricted spin-offs. If the spin-offs can defray a substantial amount of the money spent in the shuttle program, then you have a good case, and I am willing to revise my opinions based on that. So provide some positive evidences, or don't you still think that proper skeptics ought to justify their opinions, especially in such interests as science and technology?
Sure. Then provide examples of the wide-ranging utility of what the manned space program has given to science.
Fine, so now do you feel that your opinions ought to be held to the same standards of proper skepticism? Your opinions (that there might be several good reasons for keeping manned space programs, though not necessarily due to scientific reasons) have not been defended. I think your positive contribution in this regard will more than helpful in resolving out little argument.
Full of what? Note that you made a blanket statement based solely on your admittedly limited reading into this subject. That's hand-waving.
That's good. Thank you. If you want to recommend a book or article/s by someone stating your position, I'd be more than happy to oblige as well.
I have made a positive claim, and I'm trying to justify it. But I am saddened that you don't feel the need to defend your opinion, since by doing so, we can both learn a lot. Do you cherish your opinions in this matter so much that they are no longer fair game to skeptical scrutiny? Don't you feel the need that an examination of your opinions can enhance and enrich it?

I agree that the fruits of unmanned missions are all over the place. Most of what we know of planetary science is the result of unmanned probes. I haven't seen the positive results of manned space missions, though. If it's all over the place, then I'll have to ask for examples.

Hmmm... You can't see the humorous sarcasm? It's not to belittle my opponents, but to make this topic lighthearted. If my injection of humor is wrong, then I may have to apologize for that. The trekkie term is not mine in the first place. The ISS is generally accepted to be a waste, but if you disagree, then let's see why. Childhood fantasies is too much, I guess.
I've received respect from you? Wow, my english must really be rusty, as I never saw much.
Mind-reader, are we? I may have gone overboard, but never, ever, say that I'm not interested in your opinions. Read my posts. I don't just want to hear your critique of my opinion (though I am happy to accept it), but I want the people on the other side to give positive evidences and arguments. I want to learn. Educate me.

Secular Pinoy

Thanks for the info. See, NASA is allocated a trifle of the national budget. So we ought to use it wisely, and I say we use it for unmanned research.
Yes, so true. But why do we need to be exploring what's barely outide of our atmosphere?
We can already explore our neck of the woods using unmanned probes. Manned missions are more expensive, and it puts people into harm's way, and for what, to get NASA some publicity?

As I've noted, there is a time to explore the cosmos, but right now it is prohibitively expensive, technically unfeasible, and just not worth it.
The military already have their bloated budget. Let them be content with that!

Mageth

Posted by Shadowy Man:

The manned program at NASA is not about science; it is about exploration. I'm not sure why NASA doesn't openly admit to this.

Response by Secular Pinoy:

Yes, so true. But why do we need to be exploring what's barely outide of our atmosphere?

I'd have to say the manned program is about science and exploration. A good part of the science performed by, and only performable by, manned missions is necessary if we're ever going to explore "outside of the atmosphere." Further, there are some engineering tasks (such as repairing the Hubble Telescope) which simply cannot be performed without putting humans in space, at least at this time.

When I worked at NASA JSC, I worked supporting life sciences (specifically human physiology) experiments that flew on the Shuttle, where a lot of research was being done on how humans can endure long periods in space. We have to fully understand that before, for example, we can ever think of sending a manned mission to Mars.

You might say that earth orbit is the baby step we need to master before we can take the bigger steps into the rest of the solar system.

echidna

Using spinoffs to justify NASA's budget is like saying that the discovery of nylon justified WWII.

Mageth

I opened a thread on this this morning, but I'll post it here as one of many examples of projects that NASA's working on that promises long-term benefits.

The Helios prototype has the potential to provide significant long-term benefits, for example a cheaper alternative to orbital satellites (referred to as "atmospheric satellites).

Dryden Flight Research Center page on Helios

Click here for a cool picture (there are more images, and even some movies, on the Dryden site).