Mageth

Demosthenes:

I'm curious about why the federal government is the only allowed entity to conduct manned exploration?

Personally, I don't know if I want Exxon launching rockets anywhere near me. They can't even sail a tanker through a few little islands without running into something.

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?

Umm, actually, private companies do develop [most of] the technology and infrastrucutre with necessary government oversight (they're called contractors). In addition, many if not most of the experiments that fly on the shuttle are private/educational enterprise experiments. That's the way NASA's worked for a long time.

Christopher Lord

Reading things like this make me terribly sad. Perhaps our species simply doesn’t have the raw balls required to climb out of our cradle. It will cost too much of money, it will cost too many lives, and it will cost shuttles, so we may as well curl up in a little ball and feel resigned to strip-mining our rock until we simply can’t muster the resources to get away when the proverbial last second rolls past us.


Perhaps the shuttle is a waste of time these days. Menial and uninspiring missions with little ‘real world’ applications tend to instigate this feeling. But this is disregarding the sheer difficulty of getting people into space. It’s a delicate optimization which (even after 113 missions) does not fail to teach. Exploding shuttles should scream to us to learn MORE, not to pack up and go home!

Challenges like space launch are precisely when technology starts to feed back on itself, which is the true worth of programs like space exploration. The way I see it, robotic missions will produce linear gains, whereas a manned mission with a solid goal will produce exponential gains (because of feedback), proportional to our sense of purpose.

Perhaps the shuttle program IS stagnant and routine, but that doesn’t suggest that we should cancel it. It suggests we have exhausted that particular challenge, and should move onto something else.

You want to see the space program produce real (ground-breaking) scientific advances again, start pushing for a trip to mars. You want to see it stagnate into The National Spacerock and Telescope Administration, just keep talkin about how its useless.

Feather

No, and no. It has nothing to do with "preference." The phrase "real world" in the context you used it is meaningless. Everything in this discussion is part of the "real world:" the space shuttle, the astronauts, the budget, diseases and pollution on earth, etc.

When you use the term "real-world" in the way you have, you imply the opposing view is some fantasy, as though it pertains to things outside the "real world."

That's not an opinion; it's a fact.

No you aren't. You've provided rationalisation, subtle and not-so-subtle ridicule, and appeals to anecdote. These aren't arguments for an opinion so much as restatements of the same opinion in different terms.



Why should I bother when you won't produce anything other than anecdotal views yourself? If the numerous spinoffs that affect every facet of our daily lives aren't evidence enough for you, I'm curious what might be? This is your burden; not mine.


It is one reason. Here you are once again attempting to restrict the context too narrowly. The individual specific science experiments performed on the missions are not the only bits of science produced/assisted by the manned space program, and yet you wish to discuss the matter as though they were. That's not "skepticism" at all. It's just artificially restricting the terms of discussion.


I'm not here to teach you anything. And what arguments have you presented? An article by a journalist and a popular paperback novel? It's not illegal too quote a couple of passages out of the paperback. Why not do so? That would be an example of you providing an argument.


"Extraordinary claim" is not the only valid test of when to be skeptical. So this is largely irrelevant.


I am "disappointed" in the sense that the one reference is an opinion piece--not an argument containing factual evidence and supporting references. I have come to expect better quality references from somebody making any kind of claim.


You mean like misrepresenting opponents' positions, bashing said opponents, and then acting hurt and/or betrayed when "self styled skeptics" aren't skeptical the way you'd like them to be?

When I am not able to demonstrate the science and/or reasoning behind a concept I do indeed resort to peer-reviewed material. Popular opinion articles and non-scientific popular books hold little weight in the realm of argument. Because, you see, it's easy to make opinions about anything.


I'd just like to point out this is the same kind of negative skepticism you seem so vehemently against.

Aside from that, I will once again resort to the spinoffs that you do, in fact, dismiss (the article you propose is an argument in favor of your opinion dismisses the spinoffs). I'm at a loss where to go from here, because you simply refuse to acknowledge the spinoffs as being valid.



First: you aren't the only, nor the final, judge of what "proper skepticism" is.

Second: My opinion that there might be other, non-scientific reasons to keep the shuttle are not germane to the conversation, as per your request (you did request that we restrict the dicussion to the scientific merits of the manned program). Moreover, the scientific value of the manned program is amply covered in the publications you refuse to acknolwedge as valid--hence the impasse.


No you wouldn't, and you've said as much.

No and yes.

You mean like the ones you dismissed already?


Well, humour is one thing. Humour intended to ridicule opposing views right from the start is another.


Well, appeals to popularity never have been popular with skeptics.

That's not our job (to educate you). You present an opinion and pretend to have arguments in favor of it. I've shown that the one accessible argument you've posted (the article) isn't an "argument" at all so much as a restatement of your opinion. I've also shown that you have demonstrated a willingness to ignore evidence I present in favor of my opinion before the discussion even begins (again, the article).

Just in case it's obscure to you: http://www.nasa.gov has lots of archives of the spinoff publication.

As for the book, you'll have to wait until I buy it and form an opinion. Until then you're free to believe you've presented arguments in favor of your opinion all you like, even though it's not necessarily true. (See, that's skepticism: based on your assessment of the article as an "argument" in favor of your opinion, there is evidence to suggest that your similar assessment of the book as an "argument" is just as fallacious--in other words I'm skeptical that the book you've cited is any better than the article you linked, but I should check the book out, because that's the fair thing to do.)

abe smith

Apart from the human costs in deaths, I see all that SPACE stuff as an asshole way to waste money & resources that *ought* to be spent for the humanbeings here on Earth's surface.
I see All That Junk as another stupid juvenile-macho-male way to strut their teenyweeny willies and "prove" what draybid asshole dick-wavers they are. The hell w/ it!
Faster cars, bloodier sports-meaningless contests, showing-off how drunk you can get, bragging about how women find you irresistible, smoking yourself to death to prove what a MAN you are.... fuck that shit. It's for stupid kids.

Secular Pinoy

I wrote a pretty mean (vicious, admittedly) piece in response to Feather. I just removed it to prevent furthur escalation.

Now, apologies are in order. I apologize if I came across as mean and arrogant. I apologize if I've been less than fair. While I have noticed a lot of mistakes in your post, I will pass them over in silence.

Let's try to resolve this impasse, ok?

Let's see now. I have an opinion. It's that there isn't really a whole lot of science going on in the space shuttle program. I posted a link to what Feather referred to as an "opinion piece." Doubtlessly, there are opinions in it, but some facts as well.

Feather uncharitably denies that this can be construed as an argument, but I say that it is. To make it more explicit, let me schematize it as folows:

(1) The shuttle missions have not been doing any really good science, nor having had many useful results.

(2) The shuttle missions, from the development to the actual launches, costs billions of dollars.

(3) Good science are already being performed relatively cheaply by unmanned space vehicles.

(4) Most of the experiments on board can be replicated to a great degree, on ground-based laboratories (I remember seeing this in a BBC program).

(5) From this, we can reasonably assert that the shuttle missions is not worth it, from a scientific and monetary standpoint.

This is, no doubt, confirmatory of my opinions (as Feather states), but to dismiss it because it is so is wrong. Experiments on genetic changes in populations also confirm my opinions of the fact of Evolution.

I may have unintendedly misled people (Feather in particular) into thinking that non-scientific reasons are irrelevant. That was not my proposition. I posted this in Sci/Skep because I would like people's opinions on whether the shuttle has scientific merits. Note that even if we accept my basic conclusion, it does not follow that the shuttle program is worthless. Feather could easily start another thread detailing the merits of the shuttle missions for other reasons, and post a link here.

That is why I prefer to narrow the discussions to scientific merits. In fact, I would participate positively to the new thread, as I can also think of some good, non-scientific reasons for continuing the shuttle program. But that is not the focus of this thread. A thread that argues for the non-existence of god with a premise based on the evolution of the mind, IMO, ought to be split into two, one for the EoG, the other for EvoCre.

Now, I am unsure of Feather's opinions regarding the merits of the shuttle program from a scientific perspective. I sense implied opinions, but I will not speculate. I hope s/he makes it explicit.

Regarding his/her reference to the NASA website, and the Spinoff magazine, I have read some articles but I still haven't seen anything of major merit. I hope that Feather can take a few examples and show us why they ought to be considered substantial.

Feather pointed out that the products found in the Spinoff articles ought to be taken as evidence of the usefulness of the shuttle missions. Note that if you read the articles online, most products are not directly, nor indirectly, the result of the shuttle missions, but by NASA's ground-based laboratories, working independently of the shuttle missions. This is a salient point.

I hope this attempt at returning the thread to civility can help us tackle this issue fairly and objectively. I have laid down my arms and ask Feather to lay down his. I have shown my argument, I hope Feather show his'/her's.

Feather

Pinoy, I'm not playing this game with you, period.

I haven't personally attacked you nor criticised you personally in any way. I haven't tacitly assumed your opinions are valueless or wrong, and I most certainly have not been uncivil.

A moderator has implied to me in a private message that this discussion should be taken offline (via e-mails perhaps or possibly private messages here).

For these reasons I will not indulge you further on this thread.

Friar Bellows

Yeah, man! All that telescope and astronomy stuff is just teenage boys spying on the girls in the shower. And physics!? Just the wet dreams of juvenile testosterone-drenched minds wanting to blow things up! Maths? Just a bunch of show-off hieroglyphics for assholes! Curiosity and exploration is for dickbrains!

99Percent

There is a very simple reason why the space shuttle is NOT worth it - no one in the private sector is even close to considering it viable let alone profitable.

Giorgia

Too late, in my opinion. I was enjoying reading the easy conversational tone of this thread -- it was one of the very few which wasn't overly wordy, pedantic, and, oh --- what's the expression: too full of self-defensive personality issues. Now it's just as boring as most of the others in this section. So, I'm unsubscribing -- it was interesting while it lasted.

Jackalope

Okay, I can think of one very good reason to continue manned spaceflight. Part of the stuff we'd like to do on Mars is take core drillings and other interesting samples to get a look at the history of the rock there. Now, I don't know if you've ever seen a core drill operated before, but right now we cannot build one that will operate totally without human intervention here on earth, much less on another planet.

Unless the unmanned space advocates can come up with equipment that works flawlessly for certain very difficult applications, we're stuck sending people to do some of the investigating. So the life sciences studies that flew in the shuttle do serve a purpose. It's just not a near-term one. We have to learn how to live in space first, and that requires a lot of study and practice. We've gotten much better at it since the Mercury program, but we're not nearly good enough at it yet to pack an expedition off to Mars.

Automation in space has also improved, but some things require real-time intervention. Mars Rover was great, but couldn't do the same things that a trained geologist could do if they could walk on the martian surface. The only way we're going to get to that point is to attempt to improve our understanding of how living in space affects human beings. A lot of the shuttle missions have been focused on that very issue.

I agree that the shuttle needs to be replaced, however the main reason it hasn't been replaced is that there hasn't been enough money in the NASA budget to do that for almost 20 years. So the bind we're in has come about because we, as a country, were too short-sighted.

The private companies that have tried to get into space have so far not done too well. Any space program needs long-term investment, and most investors are looking for a quicker return. The failure of Iridium because it was out-competed by the explosion of mobile phones working off cells didn't help that any at all. Unless companies are lofting satellites at a pretty steady pace, a commerical launch company can't even get close to breaking even.