Because they won't fight back...

Everything about space exploration helps our species and should be encouraged.

As for a moon-base, it must be done & we need to do all we can to keep the military as far from this endeavor as possible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Just take a breath, and cool down.

Which one posted example after example suggesting that bluesdave has fallen for classic myths. bluesdave - where are your examples? How do you know when not one example is even posted? Where is your proof? Why do you keep posting speculations without even a single supporting example? Bluesdave - I say this with the cold blooded attitude of one holding a gun to your head - or urinating on your bible.

Meanwhile we could build more 'space shuttles' or we could explore space. Which did we do? We can spend billons of dollars - as others advocate for our greater glory. Doing no science building another ISS? Or we can spend $hundreds of millions doing science advocated by innovators; using state of the art technology (especially robotics) to even advance mankind. Let's see. Ten+ useful science missions for same dollars that put people working on useful endeavors – ie all that technology currently exploring Mars. Or do work that only serves a political agenda. Which one do you advocate?

Posted many times previously were examples of science after science trashed only for the glory of that George Jr political agenda. Did you read those many and previous posts? Or do you just know a moon based, instead, is better science?

Based upon facts provided, a moon base apparently is not for science. A moon base for a political agenda? Where did the proposal come from? Scientists? Or from the White House? Little hint. The latter. Previously posted are numerous science experiments already canceled only for this political agenda. Did you read the list?

Which one has a history of doing things only for a political agenda and therefore making decisions we all regret? Too many good reasons why George Jr is nominated for worst American president. I fear this moon base is but another example especially because the idea comes from a leader whose tendencies are so similar to those found in communist governments. Why is working for the glory of a political agenda more important than the nation? As rkzenrage posts:

Everything about space exploration helps our species and should be encouraged

which is why a George Jr legacy memorial moon base is being created at the expense of all those now canceled science missions.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

Which one posted example after example suggesting that bluesdave has fallen for classic myths. bluesdave - where are your examples? How do you know when not one example is even posted? Where is your proof? Why do you keep posting speculations without even a single supporting example? Bluesdave - I say this with the cold blooded attitude of one holding a gun to your head - or urinating on your bible.

Well bigmouth, here are a few links from NASA covering exactly what I was talking about. Here is your proof:

Benefits of Space Exploration
Warning: use of this page will involve reading.

The Role of the Innovative Partnerships Program

Benefiting From Space Exploration

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I can't rattle off all of the technology that has come directly from the space programme, but I have heard lists of examples given many times.

And bluesdave still does not cite a single example. He heard. Therefore he knows. For those who need examples (details) of one easily deceived by what he heard, read on. Blunt honest posts that confront the naive will be long and full of details - not soundbytes.

For those interested in the bottom line, jump to the last two paragraphs.

Well bigmouth, here are a few links ...

'Bigmouth' immediately implies bluesdave could not find an example. So he cites reams of reading that are completely irrelevant; especially his second citation.

Challenged to post one example, bluesdave posted this fluff

The goals of the Vision for Space Exploration are to implement a sustained and affordable program, extend human presence across the solar system, develop innovative technologies, knowledge and infrastructures, and promote international and commercial participation. NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) has a major role to play in achieving all of these goals, but in none more so than making it sustainable and affordable.

No place does that citation claim a spinoff from manned spaceflight.

Listing book and paper titles proves something? bluesdave still provides not one example. He heard a book title and that is his proof.

Third citation says:

One area space exploration has always benefited has been the economy. It has obviously affected transportation both in the air and on the ground. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has always gone hand in hand with the United States Air Force helping in the design of key parts in various aircraft.

So what new technology evolved only because man flew in space? Bluesdave: your citation demonstrates that 'less than 10% of NASA's budget’ does almost all science. Furthermore, that science is also being cut to pay for these Man to Mars programs. That transportation R&D is being eliminated or diminished along with other science such as atmospheric research. Again, good science being condemned to put a man on Mars. Bluesdave says this is good?

Bluesdave - please learn why George Jr could lie about Saddam and so many believed it. Apparently you are still young. You have fallen for the exact same logic that 'proved' Saddam had WMDs.

Other examples: "cabin pressure altitude monitor has been installed in commercial aircraft". "gas detector once used to monitor the space shuttle’s hydrogen propulsion system is now used by Ford Motor Company as it ventures to create a natural gas-powered car". Wow. None of these would have been developed if it were not for manned spaceflight? Obviously, bluesdave, you have never worked in design or development. Some of your examples already existed in some hazardous materials sites I once worked in long before I got there.

bluesdave - they have you by the short hairs. You really believe this stuff would never happen without spaceflight? Please first learn how technology is developed and evolves. Based upon your reasoning, then massive new products would be spunoff if the government only spend $billions developing a new grass seed.

Third citation is especially embarrassing and classic propaganda. It claims that communication and weather satellites would not exist without manned spaceflight. GOES-M exists because of something called TIROS. Communication satellites because of 1957 Sputnik and 1960 Echo 1. Did you always swallow the hook with line, and sinker? Or do you first question what you heard? They have you - bluesdave - citing myths as fact. Your own citation proves that these products would not exist without manned spaceflight? Nonsense. Your third citation exposes little grasp of history.

“The astronauts onboard [the ISS], their work and the instruments used will provide a ‘window on the world,’ enabling scientists to monitor and understand the factors affecting quality of life”

and yet ISS still does virtually no science. At what point, bluesdave, does your credibility get attached to your citations?

Bluesdave - you were asked to cite a specific example. Every example already existed or was being developed anyway. Your own reasoning proves that government should spend $1 billion to develop a new grass seed. Why do you, bluesdave, so easily fall for hype and myth? Did you not learn from another fiasco created by same people and justified by these same myths: "Mission Accomplished"?

Bluesdave - you clearly are young. Learn from your mistake. You heard things and did not doubt. Your own citations are classic spin and (the third citation) even outright lies (how did manned spaceflight create Sputnik and Trios as you have claimed?). Bluesdave speculates these products existed due to manned spaceflight - by believing propaganda. And still bluesdave provides no examples. Bluesdave then starts a "bigmouth" insult. Apparently he knew he was caught speculating and is now angry. Manned Moonbase is not justified by product spinoffs. Bluesdave demonstrates that many somehow know a moonbase must be good - because embarrassing questions are not being asked. A common mistake made by the young.

[tw]

Blame the mistakes called Shuttle and ISS as an excuse to make the same mistake - a Moonbase? This is spin. But notice again what is being victimized in the process. From the NY Times of 9 Dec 2006:

NASA Official Questions Agency’s Focus on the Shuttle
Mr. Griffin was appointed to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 2005, a year after President Bush announced his “vision for space exploration,” which calls for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020 and then moving on to send humans to Mars. Mr. Griffin has from the start been an enthusiastic proponent of that plan.

But it has put him in a delicate situation, as he has shifted NASA financing to the Moon initiative, while moving to complete the space station and shut down the shuttle program by 2010, and cutting back on its science activities. And in doing so, he has occasionally expressed doubts about the wisdom underlying the nation’s decision to build the shuttle and the station.

Both Shuttle and ISS have victimized the 10% of NASA's budget that does science. "... by cutting back on its science activities". And so we blame the Shuttle and ISS to further victimize science - doing more 'glory for no purpose' manned spaceflights to the moon.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

And so we blame the Shuttle and ISS to further victimize science - doing more 'glory for no purpose' manned spaceflights to the moon.

You seem to refuse to accept the point that both I and Bruce have tried to put forward - that there is an emotional aspect to space exploration. At the risk of being flamed by you, yet again, I agree with much of what you say. There *is* a huge wastage of money being spent on projects that return a questionable level of benefits, and more deserving projects are canned because politicians want to gain points for supporting the "glory" missions.

As Bruce has pointed out, the public will choose a widescreen plasma TV, over a new space probe, every time. You can't fight human nature. Yes, you can try educating them, but experience shows me that the public wants to hear about the sparkle and flashy coloured lights, and are less interested in the science. The politicians know this, and use it against us. Welcome to my world.

I don't know how we can convince the public that scientific research is worth the money. They think it is great that a sports star gets paid millions of dollars a year, yet they are reluctant to spend more money on scientific research (I realise I am talking about different pools of money, but it is the public's opinion that I am targeting).

Nothing will change until the public realises that a good scientific research project is worth more to their lives, than a sports star's multi-million dollar salary. It is the same issue that you are raising about NASA.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

You seem to refuse to accept the point that both I and Bruce have tried to put forward - that there is an emotional aspect to space exploration. At the risk of being flamed by you, yet again, I agree with much of what you say. There *is* a huge wastage of money being spent on projects that return a questionable level of benefits, and more deserving projects are canned because politicians want to gain points for supporting the "glory" missions.

As Bruce has pointed out, the public will choose a widescreen plasma TV, over a new space probe, every time.

Therefore you should be calling for more Hubbles, Martian Explorers, probes to Saturn, etc. Fabulous science AND better pictures comes from these. We have plenty of fireworks on 4th of July.

The only emotion from manned space is created in spin and myths. How quickly all that emotion faded after Apollo 11. Apollo 13 was completely ignored by the networks.

Meanwhile, tell me about this emotion? Tonight the Space Shuttle will be launched in a trajectory that might be viewable all up the East Coast. Notice how everyone is excited and talking about that unusual and so exciting event? Where is all this emotion? I don't see a single post here reminding everyone from FL to Maine to watch for the space shuttle. Where is this excitement and emotion? Where is this extremely rare and visible Space Shuttle launch attracting everyone’s excitement – if manned spaceflight is so emotionally important?

This 'emotion' attached to manned space is myth as even demonstrated by how we totally ignored Apollo 13 - until an event made real science necessary.

But again, what made Apollo 13 both exciting AND made that disaster into a success? In every case politicians were silence and people who come from where the work gets done both defined each problem AND initiated each solution. Even Lyndon Johnson was forced to sit outside in the car because astronauts wives demonstrated proper contempt for political games. All this science and success accomplished without any White House interference. And yet the White House suddenly knows a Moonbase is needed?

That lesson about manned spaceflight has been repeated continously. Instead, manned spaceflight should be integrated into a science program that has a strategic objective. Is emotion a strategic objective? Obviously not. Emotion only comes after a strategic objective is first defined. Frustration - the current emotion attached to Space Shuttles and ISS - is the emotion we have because politics (not science) created both missions.

BTW, what is the strategic objective of ISS? It has one. Do you know what the strategic objective of ISS is? The answer creates emotions. What is that answer? What is the purpose of ISS?