And "nothing" we did had ANYthing to do with science, technology or
research...?!?!
Not much. The manned missions were all about catching up with, and beating,
the Soviet Union.
You are saying we spent those funds and that effort SOLELY to "catch up
with the Soviets"...?!?!
Most of it. The manned missions were the bulk of the spending, and were
primarily (not solely, but primarily) about catching up to the Rooskies and
eventually beating them. We did.
In those years, the question posed to NASA was "can it be done?" not "can it be
done for less than this much money?" NASA effectively had a blank check for
manned missions.
Civil War: Creation of the present ambulance services, advances in
trauma
medicine, advancement of the railroads and wireline telegraphy.
Photography
becomes popular.
Bloodiest war in USA's history, fought in large part...(SNIP)
Yes, Jim...I think we all know WHY the war was fought.
There's actually a lot of disagreement on that. Some folks like to say it was
about slavery. Others like to say it's about "states rights".
It's interesting that you snipped out the part I wrote about people wanting to
continue to own other people.
HOW did that negate anything I said?
I'm just saying that the price paid for those advances was horrific.
Ambulance service and trauma medicine yes - because of so many wounded.
Railroads were well established before 1861. The main "advancement" was the
standardization of lines in the South when they were rebuilt after beying
heavily damaged during the war.
Wire telegraph had pretty much connected the developed world. The
transatlantic
cable was in service *before* Fort Sumter.
Photography was driven by a number of factors, not just the war.
So...you are telling me that NONE of the advancements and improvements
occured asa a result of the war.
Nope.
I'm telling you that you are exaggerating the benefits of the war.
World War 1: The airplane was just a motor driven kite in 1914, and
is
ready to span the Atlantic in 1919. The radio comes of age. New advances
in
the treatment of diseases (from the study of sanitation in the trenches).
Chemical warfare advances. Unbalance of offensive and defensive weaponry
leads
to enormous death toles in trench warfare. Submarine technology increases
hazards of sea travel.
Advances in flight and radio technology are logical outcomes of increased
demand for those technologies.
And the advancement of submarine technology increased our ability to do
further marine research in the following years.
Not really. Between the world wars, most submarine development was military.
Commercial radio for the masses follows developments of new technology
during the war.
Commercial aviation blossoms after the war.
Sure - because civilians wanted it. Real airline service took about a decade.
World War 2: Mass production of antibiotics (developed in the 30's, but
not considered a priority until the war), development of RADAR, the jet
engine,
further advancements in air travel as a result of the development of
pressurization. Missle technology emerges. Microwave and X-Ray technology
skyrockets.
Genocide technology rapidly advanced by Germans. Atomic weapons developed,
permitting both cities and their inhabitants to be incinerated at lower cost
and effort. Digital electronic computer is developed to improve aiming of
guns.
50 million dead, entire countries devastated, permitting massive rebuilding
and
modernization efforts postwar. War also facilitates Soviet expansion into
much
of Europe.
So what you're telling me is that NONE of the POSITIVE things that came
from this era are valid, and that since a lot of bad things DID occur, we
should shun the good ones too...?!?!
Nope. Not at all.
I'm saying that the advances weren't worth the price paid.
Korea: Use of the helicopter for medical evacuation. Proliferation
of
the television. Satellite communications.
Satellite communications? Where?
Jim...
We developed new technologies DURING the conflict.
Not satellites during the fighting in Korea. Yes, I know the "war" in Korea
hasn't officially ended but the fighting stopped before you and I were born.
Satellites came much later.
The increased spending and military build-up incidental to the Korean
Conflict and the ensuing "Cold War" DID spur on "satellite"
communications...Did it not?
No.
Viet Nam/Moon Missions: Advancements in microprocessors, additional
advancements in trauma care (MAST pants, use of helicopters in civilian
MEDEVAC, previously considered too expensive due to limitied manufacture of
helos) IR/NVG technology.
Microprocessors first appeared in the early 1970s - developed for civilian
applications.
Applicaitons that were incidental to military spending and research.
No.
SDI/Cold War: Space imaging, proliferation of LASER devices,
especially
into medical field.
In many cases those
"jumps" would have happened anyway, or are the result of massive
investment by governments that would be considered "socialistic" in
peacetime.
Oh..."would have happened anyway"...?!?!
Yes. There is a logical progression of most technologies. It's called
engineering. You don't need a war to do it.
No, you don't.
That's my point. You seem to be selling the idea that we must have war and an
enormous space program in order to advance technologically. That's simply not
the case.
Unless human beings learn to evolve beyond armed conflict, they will become
extinct.
It's just that we have developed a pattern of spurts of development
coincidental to military spending or conflict. This is a documented fact.
It happens.
Of course - because during such conflicts, enormous amounts of resources are
poured into technological development. It becomes an emergency response. But
it's enormously inefficient.
I don't think so, Jim.
It's true.
All of the major developments of other
technologies or services only happened where there was major subsidies by
governments.
Even if true, why does it take a war? Why not simply solve the problems?
I agree. Now, what better to way to spur the development of newer
technologies than to advance the space program...?!?!
Simple: Work on those technologies directly. Want better medical imaging
technologies? Work on them - don't say we must fund trillion-dollar manned Mars
missions because we *might* get better medical imaging technology years
afterward.
Some, such as the expansion of oil refining, etc, only happened
after the development of the automobile, one of the few exceptions to the
above.
There are *lots* of exceptions. The automobile is one. PCs are another.
Modern
construction practices. Fiber optic communications. Lots of others.
Jim...Jim...Jim...
The rapid development of automotive technologies came after WW2...As did
developments in aviation and communications.
No it didn't. Remember the Model T? There were millions of cars before WW2.
You forget that there was enormous demand after WW2 because of the depression
and the war-long diversion of auto production to war production. No new cars
for several years in the early '40s. None!
Or they're the result of government programs that are done
to soften the conversion to a peacetime economy.
Uh huh...government subsidies. Again, big influx of cash from taxes.
Which those "tax and spend democrats" are usually pushing...
MAY have happened otherwise, but it didn't.
Why spend your own money if Uncle will give you some?
In any event the cost far exceeds the benefits.
Oh?
Yes.
You've not proven it, Jim.
It's an opinion, Steve. I don't think the benefits of the advances were worth
the cost.
We are presently exchanging these comments via a medium that was
developed incidental to yet other military programs.
Only part of it.
The proliferation of the Internet has driven communication costs to all
time lows. Cellular technology, based in part on techniques developed for
secure communications for...you-know-who...have put a telephone on the hip of
almost every American.
Only in part.
All of the basic concepts of the PC you look at (distributed computing,
networking, graphical user interface, even the mouse) were developed at Xerox
Palo Alto in the 1960s and early 1970s. Xerox was looking to the office of the
future, and how computing could be integrated into the office environment. Much
of what they envisioned has come to pass. None of it was powered by the space
progrm or war - it was just plain old civilian capitalism and private money.
The internet would not be of any use to you or me if there weren't affordable
PCs or similar hardware to let us access it. That hardware didn't come from war
or space.
Let me make my position clear, Steve:
I think a manned space program is a good idea. But it must stand on its own
merits and be consistently funded at a sustainable level. It should not be sold
as a jobs program for Ph.Ds that will somehow solve all our Earth problems, or
some sort of emergency that simply has to happen *now*.
I think we need to focus more on long term solutions to problems here on earth
- and solve those problems directly.
Threaded Mode
