K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor,
there will still be starving people, there will still be
inequality, and
the world will not be any better a place than it is today.
Sounds pretty fatalistic to me.
I say things can be made a lot better, if the will is there to do it.
Oh?
The United Nations tried in Somalia.
And they failed. You're saying that one failure proves there's
no point in trying to change anything when it comes to poverty,
inequality, or making the world a better place.
They were more interested in guerrila warfare. Seems they couldn't
find the resources to feed themselves, yet when the resources were
brought to them, they resorted to murder and feudalistic warfare.
Sure. They valued warfare higher. Doesn't mean everyone does.
Take the whole energy issue. Suppose there *were* a serious, longterm,
well-funded national program to improve our energy situation. Attack on
all fronts - conservation, recycling, new sources, greater efficiency,
etc. Do you really think such a program couldn't help improve the lives
of almost all Americans?
Hmmm?
Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession
alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.
Can you guarantee that those advances would not have
happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields
directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?
In industrialized society's history, major technological
advancements have MOSTLY followed (1) war, (2) captialist investment for profit (3) government subsidy to do research in that field (usually the impetus of, again, war).
There are certainly exceptions to the rule, radio being one of them.
"Radio" was not developed by governmental subsidy, nor was it the
product of an 18th century "Motorola" but was the "product" of private
inventors.
BINGO!
The same was mostly true of computers. Oh yes, the first real computer,
ENIAC, was built for the Army to compute artillery aiming tables. But
it was built on the work of earlier machines like the Atasinoff-Berry
Computer. And only one ENIAC was ever built. Its successors came from
private industry, for commercial purposes.
No, I can't guarantee that those advances would not have
occured...but WHEN would they have occured?
Nobody knows.
Right - who knows.
Nobody. Technological advance isn't always predictable.
True...there's no linear scale to it. But it's been in a positive
trend with STEEP improvements following warfare.
Not because of warfare, but because the resources were dedicated to
solving the problems.
One interesting historic game is to look at what was predicted for the
future back 10, 20, 30 years. It's hilarious how many predictions never
came true, and how many things that are common today were not foreseen.
And how much of it COULD have been done if only the money were
applied to them?
Some could, others were simply not practical. Point is, nobody seems to
be very good at predicting the future of technologies. Even the
"experts"
and "professionals" get it wrong most of the time. But people don't
remember
what an awful track record they have...
As much as I believe that the Space program was a
peaceful spur to
technology, in the end, I don't care.
I like adventure, I like science, and I like exploring. People *will"
go into space, people *will* go to Mars. Will it be us, or will we be
known as the Portuguese of space exploration?
IOW, you're in it for the Buck Rogers factor.
Huh?
Don't you remember "Buck Rogers"? Old sci-fi character.
The reference means Mike is more interested in the excitement than the
hard
science or the technological benefits.
Recall that the "great nations of Europe in the 16th century" all went
exploring for *commercial* and *political* reasons. For the bucks, not
Buck Rogers.
And did science NOT benefit, Jim?
Not really.
And the point is they did *not* go exploring for "science" or "because
it's there"
but for reasons like making money.
Did I not say that direct commercial investment was a prime source
of scientific advancement?
Certainly NOT in the time
frame that they have.
Why not?
The fact is that we've avoided making serious longterm plans to solve
some basic technological problems in the USA. That avoidance has cost
us dearly, and will cost us more, until we
tackle the problems head-on rather than expecting some silver bullet to
do it for us.
Paying big bucks for the Buck Rogers factor, while ignoring the serious
earth-bound issues like energy supply, trade deficit and vulnerability
to weather disruption isn't smart...(SNIP)
OK...
That's the very argument that was bantied around at the end of the
Apollo project.
Were they wrong or right?
So the Space Program got back-burner'd except for robotic
explorations, the ISS and and the Shuttle.
Also Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, Viking, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars
missions..
Hardly "back-burner". How much was NASA's budget in those years? How
much is it now?
And how much would it have cost to continue lunar missions?
Global warming is as bad if not worse than it ever was in the
70's.
Think about *why*. It's not because of NASA.
It's because, after a few years of gasoline shortages, fossil fuels
became
cheap and plentiful in the early 1980s. And the problems were largely
ignored.
Which administration refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement?
However spaceborne assets such as the Shuttle, ISS and MIR have
been used to document and archive these events as never before
possible.
I think most of that data collection is done by unmanned weather and
geological observation satellites.
Poverty is as bad if not worse as it was in the 70's.
Think about *why*.
Most of
Africa is a wasteland. AIDS shot across the continent like a
cannon-shot.
Think about *why*.
The 50's, 60's and into the 70's were periods of great scientific
expansion and awareness of not only ourselves, but our "communities" of
the world.
Sure - for a bunch of reasons, not just space programs. But science is
useless
unless the knowledge is put to work.
Today our kids can't even find Africa on a map.
Depends which kids you ask. I know plenty of elementary-school kids who
can.
It's exactly like the guy who buys
season tickets and a new bigscreen plasma TV/home theatre to watch the
games using a credit card. While he ignores his rundown, collapsing
house, sick children and insecure job situation.
Amazing how we arrive at the same point via different paths.
(Wanna buy an AK-47...?!?!)
The question is *why* that guy wants/needs an AK-47 rather than, say, a
better plow or clean water.
Is it because he's an aggressor?
Is it because he's been attacked so many times that he needs it to
defend himself?
Is it some other reason?
Consider this, Steve: The reason "we" succeeded in going to the moon
was that a clear goal
was defined, nearly-unlimited resources allocated, and limitations on
success were kept to a minimum.
If it took a three-man crew, they sent three men - not two and not
four. That one of them would go all the way to the moon and back yet
never set foot on it did not change the plans. That they built an
enormous and expensive
rocket, and only got a small capsule back, did not change the plans
either. They simply did what was needed to meet the goal and nothing
more nor less.
Similar methods can be used to solve some (but not all) earth-bound
problems. But too often, "we" are unwilling to do what's needed here at
home to make it happen. Problems which are not as tough as Apollo (such
as modern surface transportation) are considered "too hard" to solve.
There's another factor at work, too: short attention span. The moon
missions were essentially a crash program - the Rooskies were beating
us in space "firsts", and JFK needed something that looked good to
counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis.
So NASA got a blank check, contractors got cost-plus contracts and
things went night and day for almost a decade. But when it was done,
there wasn't a long-term plan for after-the-moon.
Americans seem to do well in crises but not so well at careful
long-term changes and planning.
73 de Jim, N2EY