You missed my point.
Last edited:
Ares/Orion on the blocks?
- Thread starter Allyn Gibson
- Start date
You missed my point.
I got your point.
My answer is the same.
Lack of political will.
It is much easier to summon the will to fund a 100 million dollar lunar probe than it is to summon the will to fund a 3 billion dollar manned mission.
Who really cares about a couple of million unemployed people?
I mean come on. The business cycle rolls on. A couple of million extra people will be unemployed in 2009 than are employed in 2008.
By 2010, most of them will probably have their jobs back anyway.
I was unemployed pretty much for two straight years and it didn't break me or my family.
I mean come on. The business cycle rolls on. A couple of million extra people will be unemployed in 2009 than are employed in 2008.
By 2010, most of them will probably have their jobs back anyway.
I was unemployed pretty much for two straight years and it didn't break me or my family.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Not true. For every $1 spent in the space program the return is ~$25. The humble material called Velcro, was developed as a need to keep materials secured and yet readily removable. The space program is more than taking "pretty pictures".
Velcro could be developed without the space program. NOTHING about Velcro requires sending people into space. Same with Tang, etc.
Sorry, my point stands. NOTHING of material benefit to mankind has been derived from the space program that COULD NOT have been develeoped right here on Earth and without spending billions of irreplacable dollars on space exploration.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The military provides a material benefit to society: security. NASA provides NO material benefits to society that could not be acheived by using that money for other programs.
You missed my point. Your earlier point was mistaken. Obviously manned missions to not eliminate the usefulness of probes.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Can be done by private companies devoted to aircraft development. NASA is unnecessary.
I said my point wasnt serious, just an example of one area which has a hell of alot more money where pruning costs a little might not be so dramatic on the way they are run.
Ah well in 2010 when the space shuttle has its last mission at least Russia will still have a manned space program, I think its time the countries of the ESA consider taking manned missions seriously again, that and/or private space exploration is the way forward.
How many of them would have been saved with a crew aboard to recognize a developing problem and correct it?
Your point is pointless, just like everything else you post. The space program provides more ROI than social programs. BTW - I fixed all of your spelling mistakes. Looks like all of that money spent on public education to educate you was a waste.
Not true. For every $1 spent in the space program the return is ~$25. The humble material called Velcro, was developed as a need to keep materials secured and yet readily removable. The space program is more than taking "pretty pictures".
Velcro could be developed without the space program. NOTHING about Velcro requires sending people into space. Same with Tang, etc.
Sorry, my point stands. NOTHING of material benefit to mankind has been derived from the space program that COULD NOT have been developed right here on Earth and without spending billions of irreplaceable dollars on space exploration.
This makes as much sense as a football bat. Please re-read the part I have put in italic bold print.
I dont think you got the point of the example that was given, velcro (amongst other things) was developed for the space program...its like superglue might not exist if it hadnt been thought up a way of sticking a soldiers guts back together.
But they didn't. NASA did. And then that technology was used by all the private airlines making a huge return on the investment.
Private companies could make roads. Private citizens could defend their houses. Government is a matter of degree, not an absolute.
If you have such a problem with NASA, you should boycott every one of their innovations.
I am always skeptical that the reasons for manned space exploration are for scientific purposes. It seems to me that it is more of a national prestige/political reason and an excuse to channel money to large defense contractors to perpetuate the military industrial complex.
If the production lines cannot make nuclear missiles, lets have them build rockets for manned mission to the moon and eventually Mars.
Of course there is a benefit by keeping my fellow American employed and there is a trickle down benefit of new techniques and materials that enter the consumer market.
If the production lines cannot make nuclear missiles, lets have them build rockets for manned mission to the moon and eventually Mars.
Of course there is a benefit by keeping my fellow American employed and there is a trickle down benefit of new techniques and materials that enter the consumer market.
The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber costs about 2.4 billion dollars per each of the Air Force's 20 aircraft; 48 billion dollars for a fleet of stealth bombers. How much security do we get from a fleet of stealth bombers designed to drop nuclear warheads on an enemy that no longer exists? What's the material benefit from THAT program?
Heh...
NASA's 2008 budget was 16 billion dollars. This is about what the Air Force spent on the development of the F-22 raptor, a fighter plane that in all liklihood will never be involved in an air-to-air engagement against any other similar aircraft.
You have a funny idea of "benefit to society." We don't get much benefit from the military except the ability to bomb countries we've barely heard of with incredibly expensive weapons we've never seen for reasons we don't understand.
Don't forget though that military programs and NASA missions provide jobs for workers and engineers in the aerospace and defense industries (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman etc.) These workers then spend their paychecks in other sectors of the economy. So its erroneous to make a blanket statement that military spending doesn't benefit American society.
I guess we could argue that there might be a greater benefit to more of our population if the money was spent on something else or perhaps that we should re-allocate the money so that it benefits other segments of American society.
I guess we could argue that there might be a greater benefit to more of our population if the money was spent on something else or perhaps that we should re-allocate the money so that it benefits other segments of American society.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
So what? That doesn't mean that the space program was a NECESSARY condition to the development of Velcro. It could have been developed WITHOUT spending billions on pointless space travel.
No one has yet shown me ONE THING that REQUIRED the space program to come into existence.
Actually that is not correct.
The 48 billion dollars refers to total program costs including billions of Research & Development costs amortized over the very few aircraft that were built.
The actual cost for each B-2 Spirit is between 500 million and 600 million dollars.
If the U.S. Air Force wanted to purchase 100 B-2s from Northrop/Grumman in the next decade the cost of the buy would probably be in the 60 billion range.
Also, B-2 Spirits require only two crewman (as opposed to 4 on a B-1B and 6 on a B-52).
This means costs of manpower are lower for a given number of B-2s during their lifespan.
And fewer airmen in harms way.
Finally, due to their aerodynamic efficiency, B-2 Spirits are far more fuel efficient than B-52s or B-1s, meaning they require less fuel and less tanker support for long range missions.
Similar threads
