Trump to NASA: We're going back to the Moon - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14878111
starman2003 wrote:And who or what is ultimately to blame for that? Democracy, and the masses it empowers.

IMO it was more the politicians. The Shuttle program was a massive boondoggle because the money had to be split among different contractors in different states to satisfy certain powerful Congressmen. It was also too big, because it had to accommodate certain Air Force spy satellites that of course were miniaturized soon after. I remember when the Shuttle design was announced, I made four predictions:

1. That it would not bring down the cost of putting mass in orbit (accurate).
2. That it would kill astronauts either on launch or re-entry (accurate).
3. That it would not come close to achieving its planned launch rates (accurate).
4. That the first genuinely low-cost orbital launch system would employ two fully reusable vertically stacked stages burning LOX and LCH4, not H2 (40 years later, that is exactly what SpaceX has done).

However, there is a sense in which democracy, especially the election cycle, is to blame. Space exploration is inherently an enterprise with very long lead-times. Worthwhile objectives need stable funding and long-term plans that are not at the mercy of a four-year political horizon. It may be that China will surpass the USA in space -- thus becoming the dominant player in the future of the species -- because it can make plans for decades, generations and centuries, while the USA cannot plan more than four years ahead.
They won't accept even modest sacrifices for space.

I think if the goals and benefits had been explained properly, and pursued honestly and competently, it would have been easier to maintain public support. In particular, the stakes in space are the future direction of human civilization. Assuming we continue to exist as a species, eventually our descendants who live on earth will be dwarfed by the population living off the earth. Do we want the latter to be mainly American, or Russian/Chinese/whoever?
In one year about four times more was spent on tobacco alone than on NASA's budget.

IMO if they had perceived value for money, they would have supported the space program. NASA became incredibly wasteful under the Shuttle program, and divorced from the people's values.
#14878213
Politiks wrote:Do you believe USA has the right to go to the moon or even anywhere out of earth? We are talking about a country that had thrown 2 atomic bombs in Japan to test their toys and crown themselves the king of "no fucks given" . A country that is in war since it's conception might not be Earth's best representative in case they ended up finding a poor ET that will certainly be blown up just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Humans in general should be forbid to leave earth until we became actually civilized.


Put another way...they hate us because they ain't us.

starman2003 wrote:A majority just didn't relate to it well enough to find the expense worthwhile. They want their tax money to be spent on programs of direct benefit to them like medicare. In a democracy, politicians just have to do what the dummies want.

Not true.

A whole lot of "dummies" don't like tanks or destroyers. There is no shortage of them.


starman2003 wrote:Even if politicians didn't, by themselves, there were NASA advocates who mentioned the technical spinoffs. I don't think the problem was ignorance of the benefits among those in government. The politicians just knew a majority didn't want to see their money spent on space when there were other things they considered more important, especially themselves (everything from petty amenities to social programs).

True. I can see your point.

Let me ask you a question that occurs to me now...

Do you think that if the same group of representatives were to reconvene today in the same situation (knowing now what they didn't know then--what the picture would look like 40 years hence)...they would make the same decision about the nation's priorities?
#14878265
One thing I recall hearing from my physics professors in College was that the gravity situation in outer space can make near friction-less ball bearings. Expanding that outwards, plants, ships, tanks, cars, etc...can go further between overhauls, need less fuel, etc... Hell, drilling for oil would be more efficient
#14878296
Truth To Power wrote:IMO it was more the politicians. The Shuttle program was a massive boondoggle because the money had to be split among different contractors in different states to satisfy certain powerful Congressmen.


Actually, to satisfy the constituents of those congressmen--the voters.

However, there is a sense in which democracy, especially the election cycle, is to blame. Space exploration is inherently an enterprise with very long lead-times. Worthwhile objectives need stable funding and long-term plans that are not at the mercy of a four-year political horizon. It may be that China will surpass the USA in space -- thus becoming the dominant player in the future of the species -- because it can make plans for decades, generations and centuries, while the USA cannot plan more than four years ahead.


The basic issue is insufficient public support (at least for big, costly undertakings in space). Notice that popular social programs don't get severely cut back just because of turnover on capital hill.

I think if the goals and benefits had been explained properly, and pursued honestly and competently, it would have been easier to maintain public support. In particular, the stakes in space are the future direction of human civilization. Assuming we continue to exist as a species, eventually our descendants who live on earth will be dwarfed by the population living off the earth. Do we want the latter to be mainly American, or Russian/Chinese/whoever?


I doubt humans, as they are now, will ever adapt to radically different gravity etc. True old sol won't stay on main sequence forever. But that is so far in the future people consider it irrelevant.

IMO if they had perceived value for money, they would have supported the space program. NASA became incredibly wasteful under the Shuttle program, and divorced from the people's values.


The Apollo program incurred disapproval before then.
Regarding dummies not liking tanks and destroyers: In fact the masses respect the military and believe it is essential to protect our country and "our freedom." Look how they reelected shrub in 2004 after his idiotic invasion of Iraq. In contrast space exploration--while it fascinates some people, doesn't enjoy the same support.
#14878312
starman2003 wrote:
Regarding dummies not liking tanks and destroyers: In fact the masses respect the military and believe it is essential to protect our country and "our freedom." Look how they reelected shrub in 2004 after his idiotic invasion of Iraq. In contrast space exploration--while it fascinates some people, doesn't enjoy the same support.



The point is that people do support things that are not universally popular and the inverse is true as well; in our Republic, you do not get to pick and choose where your tax monies go in the macro.

As I stated (and it was auto corrected), sometimes it is your elected official's job to be the lever that the voters use to change things and sometimes it's your job to be the rock that stands in the way, look beyond the easy calculations, and make hard choices. The forfeiture of our technological edge in space was unforgivable yet nobody will be held to account for it. Not only did it possibly change the trajectory of mankind into more quickly becoming a bi-planet species...it absolutely retarded the STEM categories in our colleges and universities, watered down the imaginations of going on three generations (look at the title of this thread!!!), and in my view (at the risk of being over the top on it), stopped our development; nobody in the government is allowed to ask "what if" any longer; just "how cheaply can we get this done."

Joe Biden isn't the smartest guy in the room, usually, but he was correct one time. Once in Esquire magazine, he was giving an interview and he pretty much off handedly commented that we don't need new jobs as much as we need new industries. I'm not sure how much those who make martian housing units would get paid but I would think it would be a growth industry for a while paying pretty well.
#14878593
starman2003 wrote:Actually, to satisfy the constituents of those congressmen--the voters.

No, actually their corporate donors.
The basic issue is insufficient public support (at least for big, costly undertakings in space). Notice that popular social programs don't get severely cut back just because of turnover on capital hill.

Because social programs show short-term benefits.
I doubt humans, as they are now, will ever adapt to radically different gravity etc.

They'll adapt the places to their desires, or create new places. There are massively greater resources of energy and raw materials in space, and we or our successors will want to make use of them.
True old sol won't stay on main sequence forever. But that is so far in the future people consider it irrelevant.

It definitely is. Trying to plan more than about 50 years in the future is virtually a waste of time.
The Apollo program incurred disapproval before then.

Because it was premature, very expensive, and had no clear payoff. We should have tried to learn the lessons of the great period of oceanic exploration.
#14878841
Truth To Power wrote:No, actually their corporate donors.


Voters, many of whom would lose their jobs in congressional districts if funding for certain weapons--needed or not--weren't approved.

Because social programs show short-term benefits.


Right the masses or voters often don't think in terms of long term investment.

They'll adapt the places to their desires, or create new places. There are massively greater resources of energy and raw materials in space, and we or our successors will want to make use of them.


Of course but it may be ultimately be more feasible to design new beings better able to live under different conditions such as lower gravity.

Because it was premature, very expensive, and had no clear payoff. We should have tried to learn the lessons of the great period of oceanic exploration.


It probably wasn't any more expensive than the annual outlay for tobacco alone and had a payoff, increasing scientific knowledge. We can't plan to utilize lunar or other resources without first determining what's actually there.
#14878975
starman2003 wrote:It probably wasn't any more expensive than the annual outlay for tobacco alone

Irrelevant. The tobacco wasn't being paid for by taxes, it was a source of taxes.
and had a payoff, increasing scientific knowledge.

People look at scientific knowledge and see the mating habits of the three-toed sloth.
We can't plan to utilize lunar or other resources without first determining what's actually there.

But we didn't have to send PEOPLE there and bring them back to do that. It was enormously more expensive than just sending machines to do the same thing. Only now are we getting close to a mature, reusable launch technology that can put that kind of mass into orbit at a reasonable cost. At the same time, we are getting close to AI that can go out and do the kinds of things that only people could do before. People like NASA didn't respect the lead-time problem, and fundamentally failed to understand how much more efficiently space could be explored and utilized by just waiting for technology to mature.

One thing we should have done 60 years ago was stop building large research telescopes on earth and put the money into developing space-based instruments like Hubble. The results would have been far better. Astronomy is also one thing that a permanent base on the moon could do a lot better than either earth-based or even low-orbit observation.
#14879120
Truth To Power wrote:Irrelevant. The tobacco wasn't being paid for by taxes, it was a source of taxes.


My point was that the masses aren't willing to make even minor sacrifices for space. All the money spent on tobacco should've been collected as taxes instead and used for the the space program. No doubt people in the last 6 months of their lives get far more than NASA.

But we didn't have to send PEOPLE there and bring them back to do that. It was enormously more expensive than just sending machines to do the same thing.


OK fine; it doesn't matter how exploration and exploitation are achieved as long as there's a well funded program to do it.

People like NASA didn't respect the lead-time problem, and fundamentally failed to understand how much more efficiently space could be explored and utilized by just waiting for technology to mature.


It wasn't a bad idea to achieve as much as possible as soon as technology allowed it. If space efforts should wait until better technology is available, even now we'd still be waiting and achieving nothing. Anyway the problem isn't the inefficiency of the past but the failure to make better use of more efficient means now.

One thing we should have done 60 years ago was stop building large research telescopes on earth and put the money into developing space-based instruments like Hubble. The results would have been far better. Astronomy is also one thing that a permanent base on the moon could do a lot better than either earth-based or even low-orbit observation.


Yeah every astronomer knows what a hindrance earth's atmosphere is...I'm just an amateur but no exception....
#14879124
starman2003 wrote:My point was that the masses aren't willing to make even minor sacrifices for space. All the money spent on tobacco should've been collected as taxes instead and used for the the space program. No doubt people in the last 6 months of their lives get far more than NASA.
OK fine; it doesn't matter how exploration and exploitation are achieved as long as there's a well funded program to do it.

It wasn't a bad idea to achieve as much as possible as soon as technology allowed it. If space efforts should wait until better technology is available, even now we'd still be waiting and achieving nothing. Anyway the problem isn't the inefficiency of the past but the failure to make better use of more efficient means now.

Yeah every astronomer knows what a hindrance earth's atmosphere is...I'm just an amateur but no exception....


If memory serves, Pete Conrad (an Astronaut who knew a little something about how NASA worked) called the it "tomorrow land" and was skeptical that any of it was going to come to fruition once the Apollo program was done.
#14879137
Voters, many of whom would lose their jobs in congressional districts if funding for certain weapons--needed or not--weren't approved.


True. That is what democracy is all about. One votes in his or her, hopefully enlightened, self-interest. There are many examples however of voters voting unselfishly.

Because social programs show short-term benefits.


Depending on who you are and what worries you, social programs serve a variety of advantages.

They keep poor and underpaid people quiet by giving them a modicum of comfort and relief.

They give the voter piece of mind should they be anxious about their own future.

They spread the 'responsibility' to care for one another around making it affordable for all and damned cheap for the wealthy classes who once took up this responsibility.

Right the masses or voters often don't think in terms of long term investment.


On the contrary. Social Security and Medicare are good examples of the masses of voters thinking in terms of long term investment. So are their personal retirement accounts. The republicans are trying to go after social security and medicaid and have for years. It has not been possible because the majority of voters want these. And they realize that they have been paying for these benefits (though most don't realize what a great ROI they are getting.)

NASA spending is something else. At its inception it was wrapped in nationalism in a time of Soviet - US competition for global domination. NASA was created as a response to the Soviet Union launching Sputnik before us. In fact it was called the "sputnik crisis".

People who argue that we have received great technological benefits from NASA are arguing from a point of rationalization. That was not and is not currently the benefit of NASA as most people see it. If forced to be completely honest, most Americans see NASA as a national badge of honor. An international big-penis contest if you will.
#14879336
Drlee wrote:True. That is what democracy is all about. One votes in his or her, hopefully enlightened, self-interest.


But what is in the interest of the individual is often not in the best interest of the nation or environment. Individuals may benefit from the government largesse they vote for, but the country is going bankrupt. Likewise, individuals may benefit from a higher standard of living but the environment hardly benefits from the increased strain.


On the contrary. Social Security and Medicare are good examples of the masses of voters thinking in terms of long term investment.


I meant investment in the interest of a greater whole (not the individual) like infrastructure and capital investment.

People who argue that we have received great technological benefits from NASA are arguing from a point of rationalization. That was not and is not currently the benefit of NASA as most people see it. If forced to be completely honest, most Americans see NASA as a national badge of honor. An international big-penis contest if you will.


I think space is eminently worthwhile because it can increase the scope of civilization. Even if old sol leaving main sequence is a far distant concern, a vigorous space program could grant us access to the resources of a number of worlds, instead of being forever confined to just one.
Some time ago, Gerard O'Neil of Princeton pointed out the advantages to our planet of transferring polluting industries to space i.e. to worlds already lifeless anyway.

Rugoz wrote
Democracy has done a decent job in keeping the crazies away from the levers of power


You mean Trump lost the election? :) His utter disregard for the environment is crazy . And what about shrub, and his screwball neocons in 2003? As people here know, I'm no fan of democracy yet totally opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. To me, it seemed totally unnecessary, if not downright crazy. Shrub went ahead with it and the voters put him back in in 2004... :roll:
Btw going to the moon may have considerable economic benefits if he-3 is a good source of fuel for future fusion.
#14879342
Rugoz wrote:Democracy has done a decent job in keeping the crazies away from the levers of power. Such as people who think going to the Moon is an economically sensible thing to do. :knife:

To be fair they are extremely intelligent and mentally stable compared to those that want permanent settlement on Mars.
#14879346
But what is in the interest of the individual is often not in the best interest of the nation or environment. Individuals may benefit from the government largesse they vote for, but the country is going bankrupt. Likewise, individuals may benefit from a higher standard of living but the environment hardly benefits from the increased strain.


Sometimes people do what is in the long term interest of the country at great personal sacrifice. Sometimes they give their life for the country. Not all of the time and not all people. That is why we have representatives rather than direct referendum. To smooth out the hills and make the tough decisions.


I meant investment in the interest of a greater whole (not the individual) like infrastructure and capital investment.


Well we do vote for that. People voted for that with Trump but he spent the money giving a tax break to the wealthy. The people eventually come around. They will replace him, put taxes where they belong and do the work eventually. At one time our infrastructure was the envy of the world. Even today it is not half bad in comparison. We have done it and we may do it again.


I think space is eminently worthwhile because it can increase the scope of civilization. Even if old sol leaving main sequence is a far distant concern, a vigorous space program could grant us access to the resources of a number of worlds, instead of being forever confined to just one.
Some time ago, Gerard O'Neil of Princeton pointed out the advantages to our planet of transferring polluting industries to space i.e. to worlds already lifeless anyway.


I don't disagree though if we really wanted to be doing some of this we would be working assiduously on propulsion and environmental systems rather than limping to Mars. I do not deny that space travel is sexy. I even think it is good for the souls of young people to have a frontier to explore. I remember the myth of the Mercury Seven when I was a kid. They were (in the public's mind) demi-gods of all that was American. In that regard a mission to Mars might be justified. The thing is that I am not certain we have the money or the technology to make it happen yet.
#14879508
Drlee wrote:That is why we have representatives rather than direct referendum. To smooth out the hills and make the tough decisions.


Tough indeed, in cases apparently too tough for our democracy. The national debt keeps soaring because sacrifices essential to tame it--spending cuts and/or higher taxes--are anathema to voters.

Well we do vote for that. People voted for that with Trump but he spent the money giving a tax break to the wealthy. The people eventually come around. They will replace him, put taxes where they belong and do the work eventually. At one time our infrastructure was the envy of the world. Even today it is not half bad in comparison. We have done it and we may do it again.


I'm not so optimistic as the infrastructure issue long predated Trump. It is good, though, to see solar/wind power gaining ground at the expense of fossil fuels.

I do not deny that space travel is sexy.


I think in a number of ways it can be quite practical.

In that regard a mission to Mars might be justified. The thing is that I am not certain we have the money or the technology to make it happen yet.


Trump was naive to call for a Mars mission after just slashing government revenues--how else does he propose to pay for it? IMO a manned Mars mission with current technology wouldn't be the best use of NASA's money. From a purely scientific standpoint we could learn a lot more with missions like Kepler. Mars has long had a certain mystique but face it, it's just a desolate world with a tenth Earth's mass. Besides improving the means of space travel, we should improve means of detecting exoplanets and learning about them.
#14879606
Rugoz wrote:Democracy has done a decent job in keeping the crazies away from the levers of power. Such as people who think going to the Moon is an economically sensible thing to do. :knife:

Funding a crazy who thought he could get to India by sailing west from Spain was not the economically sensible thing to do, either. But it turned a poor, war-torn trading nation into a rich and powerful empire.
#14879635
Godstud wrote:This x100


We have a billion years until Earth becomes as inhospitable as the rest of the solar system.

Truth To Power wrote:Funding a crazy who thought he could get to India by sailing west from Spain was not the economically sensible thing to do, either. But it turned a poor, war-torn trading nation into a rich and powerful empire.


Great, let's dig out the dumb historical analogies.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Bringing hostages to a place does not mean there i[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

You're not ordinary, Qatz. Stop pretending to d[…]

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]