|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 11/26/2003 : 23:24:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Anybody who pays more attention to gigantic problems which might occur - while spending less effort on smaller, more-easily solved problems which are occurring - has seriously messed-up priorities.
I basically agree with that.
It was the original attack in this thread, on the little "Planetary Society," (as if they were involved in a wicked* money making scheme, rather than promoting space exploration, which is what they do,) that was weird.
* As opposed to a good money making scheme for them, which is OK with me.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 00:10:50 [Permalink]
|
Chippewa wrote:quote:
It was the original attack in this thread, on the little "Planetary Society," (as if they were involved in a wicked* money making scheme, rather than promoting space exploration, which is what they do,) that was weird.
How strange. As is being talked about in another thread here, it's always important to make one's posts as crystal-clear as possible, so that we don't talk past each other.
The reason this comes up in this thread is that I was under the impression that the government was what was under attack (in the first post and at least one subsequent reply), for not "properly" funding the manned missions desired by the Planetary Society. I mean, that's what I got out of Sea Sorbust's "We must go to Mars!" post. And PruplePanther appears to agree. I put the "properly" in quotes because it seemed obvious (to me, that is) that the two above-mentioned posters see any drop in funding as "bribery and corruption." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 06:06:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
filthy wrote:quote:
At what minium range must we spot it to be able to divert or destroy it with the tools we happen to have on hand at the moment?
If you're asking about distance, it may not matter so much. Your big, freakin' rock might, for example, be real close when it is discovered that it's orbit around the Sun will crash it into Earth in, say, four years. It might very well get farther away in that time.
There was a recent article in either Scientific American or in Discover about unmanned ships which could - theoretically - land on an asteroid destined to crash into the Earth. The ship would basically be a big engine, and push on the asteroid to change its orbit to one which misses Earth. If I remember correctly, the authors suggested that, given a reasonable propulsion system, ten years of pushing on the big freakin' rock ought to divert it enough to miss. Add to that the time for preparation, launch, travel, and rendezvous, and we need about 15 years or so advance notice. I think.
That's for an Earth-orbit-crossing asteroid. If a big freakin' chunk of ice gets flung out of the Oort Cloud towards us, that's quite a different problem. Having a telescope on Mars (actually, the farther out, the better) would give us more parallax on such objects, making them easier to detect. Actually, since the dust storms on Mars would undoubtedly be a problem, we'd want to park the telescope on an asteroid (non-Earth-orbit-crossing) or even on a moon of Jupiter.
Better yet: both. We just make these big self-contained telescope modules, and sprinkle them throughout the solar system. That would eliminate the need for manning them, too, since if one breaks down, we could just plop another one down next door.
At any rate, if we can detect the big ice-balls somewhere outside the orbit of Pluto, we might have a chance to do something about them. Otherwise, if they're coming straight for us, we're generally going to be hosed.
And that's one place I definitely disagree with Sea Sorbust. If the next major extinction event is one which will come no matter what we do, then if the cost is so high that people live out their last years in misery due to all the money being pumped into "impactor detection," the cost would, indeed, be too high.
Anybody who pays more attention to gigantic problems which might occur - while spending less effort on smaller, more-easily solved problems which are occuring - has seriously messed-up priorities. For example: the guy who spends so much time and money building a bomb shelter and stocking up for World War III that he can't hold a job or afford to get his car repaired. Spending so much on finding big freakin' rocks that people continue to starve or otherwise lead miserable lives due to other such "mundane" hassles on Earth is spending too much.
Cut spending on big-freakin'-rock detection to zero? Of course not. But there are more pressing and immediate needs of the people of the world, and that means that spending, say, a trillion bucks a year on it is ludicrous, as well. There's a happy medium, somewhere.
Thanks Dave.
I think I'd add a 5 year fudge factor to your estiment for natural, human screw-ups. And I'm cynical enough to figger that we'd be hosed, anyway.
I read a novel on the subject some years ago; Lucifer's Hammer by the afore-mentioned Larry Niven. In it, the impact big, freakin' deal was a comet. As I remember, the comet's orbit was minutely disturbed, yea these many millenia ago, enough to send it down our fictional throats. From there, the book dealt with the big, freakin' impact and it's aftermath. A good read that can make you wonder: that big, freakin' sonofabitch could be on it's way even as we discuss it here.
From an evolutionary point of view, it would be a wonderful event. Mass extinctions, thought to have been caused by violent visitors from "out yonder" (there is some dissent, but thus far, it's weak, IMO) have always opened the door to new and, to us, strange and exotic species.
I'd give my eye teeth, a couple of molars, and my spare testicle for a big, freakin' time machine!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 20:12:42 [Permalink]
|
How about a commercial development of space?
If the government won't do it, maybe the private sector will. There are lots of valuable materials out there that can be exported for profit to Earth. Check out http://www.permanent.com/
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2003 : 22:02:44 [Permalink]
|
For anyone in favor of sending manned missions to Mars, don't count on it. Spend big bucks on spotting large space rocks and huge chunks of ice destined to slam into our little planet...Don't count on it. It's politics.
The Cold War's over, our planet is in no apparent immediate danger, and we all know that men aren't really from Mars. Bribery and corruption aside, the people that will ultimately be responsible for these projects with brobdingnagian price tags have absolutely no interest in space travel. Of course this may change if a big rock wipes out Cleveland, but only if Fox News doesn't call it a terrorist attack.
With all due respect, the few space administrations throughout the world should be concentrating on near space exploration and construction. The general public still sees this aspect as potentially profitable, and as posessing military significance. To be honest, I think that we are lucky to still have unmanned exploration missions on NASA's drawing board. I may like to see more, but I know something catastrophic has to happen before most people see any advantage in serious space exploration.
Posted by Dr. Mabusequote:
How about a commercial development of space?
I think that is the intent for most. A small step forward is better than no step at all. Unfortunately, corporations will not make such a large initial investment on new technology. They will rely on the industrialized nations to make the first tentative steps, and with the shuttle grounded, and the space station so far behind, I don't see any significant movement commercially for awhile.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 09:00:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Sea Sorbust wrote:quote:
Taken in the context that 'they' are actually reducing expenditures for space, it really and truly does "STINKS of the lowest political hells of Bribery and Corruption" in high places in government.
So does any reduction in funding of a governmental program you approve of constitute "bribery and corruption?" Or can we dispense with the hyperbole and calmly discuss whether manned missions are required "to find and defend against" potential impactors?
The plain and simple fact is that as we yimmer-yammer back and forth, private, unfunded citizens are searching for, and finding, new asteroids. Near Earth Orbit asteroids. Yes, the governmental programs, hideously underfunded, are finding some through "robotic" systems, but it only takes only takes one! We're talking DEFENCE here, not the financing of a bunch of boof-headed medicoes or the underwriting of the part of the economy called "BioMedical Research".
I do not consider defending against the potential loss of millions of American lives "hyperbole". What I do see is lots of money being made in such fields as BioResearch at the cost of VAST sums of TaxDollars with, at best, marginal returns in terms of lives saved or quality-of-life increased. Give me, if you will, an alternative to "bribery and corruption".
Unmanned missions have been shown to be ineffective, again and again. Were we just doing the same thing as any typical "pork barrel" program then I would likely, albeit reluctantly, agree with you. We are, however, talking about defending against millions of KIA, and the "A" being an action against which we could defend. We spend huge amounts of TaxLoot defending against, and curing, medical problems at enormous risk to the American Populace. Surely we can "bite the bullet" and begin to start an active defence against a potential impactor and the likely catastrophic loss of life.
|
"This is the forest primeval...."  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 17:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Apparently we cannot dispense with the hyperbole, as "boof-headed medicoes" demonstrates quite well. Instead of laying out your case with simple facts, you have instead resorted to an emotional appeal based upon a comparison to another attempt to save lives (those belonging to people who are dying right now, not "potentially" dying, but really and truly dying as I type).
I would actually like to know just how much money is being spent by the government on biomedical research - as compared to the billions of dollars spent every year by pharmaceutical companies themselves - before taking the comparison between government-funded medical research and government-funded NEO searching any further. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 22:50:46 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Dave W.quote:
I would actually like to know just how much money is being spent by the government on biomedical research - as compared to the billions of dollars spent every year by pharmaceutical companies themselves - before taking the comparison between government-funded medical research and government-funded NEO searching any further.
I don't believe that the comparison between medical research and NEO surveillance is a good one, either.
However, I, also, don't think that a comparison of the amount of money spent on medical R&D btween the private and public sectors is an issue. But, I can offer this:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9336_n.html
Pinning down just how much the government invests into any advancement in healthcare seems very difficult. How do we measure the significance of special taxation, grants and loans, university technology transfers, patent improvement, the operation of governmental oversight and educational organizations, and such direct aid as orphan drug support?
For most, I think the problem is an ethical one. Despite who spends how much on bringing a bio-medical product to market, the government has made an investment. In some cases the government has made a significant investment. In a few others, the government has made a lion's share of the investment. For this, the risk argument notwithstanding, many feel that companies such as pharmaceutical corporations have a substantial social responsibility to keep prices to a minimum.
Yet, the pharmaceuticals are among the most profitable in the world, spending enormous amounts of money on lobbying and advertising while the costs of healthcare continue to climb beyond inflation. This occurs in an industry where the consumer has little informed choice Therefore, the market size controls production, but with little or no pricing competition.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/drug/
http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/corporate/articles.cfm?ID=9923
http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/contribution/articles.cfm?ID=7827
And, I know the links are biased, but I don't think anyone would have a problem finding web pages supporting the business practices of bio-med and pharmaceutical companies. Even Nader's Public Citizen gives the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies a voice. Sort of...
http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/drug_industry/corporate/articles.cfm?ID=6514
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 08:43:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Apparently we cannot dispense with the hyperbole, as "boof-headed medicoes" demonstrates quite well.
You are very wrong and extremely short-sighted, Dave. Can't imagine who, looking at likely, if not long-term certain, down side of biological research and implementation, would not call the money-grubbing, glory-seeking molecular biologists "foof-headed". Heads full of foamy foof.
One mistake in either microbial design and manufacture could easily wipe out most of humanity, saving only isolated pockets such as the Australian "aboriginies" or tightly secluded mountain nations. A single mistake in genetically modifying a food stuff such as soybeans could render that food useless, or even biodamaging, with nearly unimaginable "ripple effects" in systemic food-production.
My objections are the wasting of public and private moneys that could be put to better use. While the longterm goal should be Mars, we luckily have Moon just sitting there begging to be colonized and to house early warning asteroidal/comet hunting telescopes. Maybe 20 years ago made sense to ignore Venus but now we know about- "invisible" impactors coming in from Sun and
- so called "extremophiles", microbial lifeforms which live under extreme conditions.
Nor to discount the possibility that a "potential" impactor is guided! Not speaking of 'space aliens'---also not discounting possibility---but observing that- we, U.S. of A., took a long break from space efforts while
- some other nations did not take break.
We know about U.S.S.R. Who don't we know about? And not just "nation states"; the term "trade War" is in wide usage.
Only real questions are- funding and
- if it is possible to "guide" a 100-yard diameter iron-nickel asteroid into U.S. Midwestern or Ukranian food-belt?
However this is nearly same question asIs it possible to defend
against an approaching impactor? We hope that it is possible elsewise we should quit talking "Space". But if defence IS possible so is it possible to "guide" orbit of asteroid to strike some specific place on Earth, give or take a hundred miles or so.
Claim that with a 100+yard iron-nickel impactor, hundred-mile bull's eye miss is nearly irrelevant.
As to "medicoes", " Burn them at the stake" before they, in their arrogant ignorance, manage to kill us all by accident or simple mean-spirited nihilism. |
"This is the forest primeval...." |
|
|
|
Sea Sorbust
Skeptic Friend
USA
68 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 09:05:17 [Permalink]
|
Before am attacked by Dave again, time to launch pre-emptive strike.
By "simple mean-spirited nihilism" phrase at end of last post, mean either someone who has developed virulent microbial strain and has found
a means to defend her/himself against effects or some very bitter person who has terminal disease and embarks on a
"If I have to die so should everyone else!" direction of research. Sorry. Grim thoughts but . . . . 
Edited: Probably should have wrote "...by accident, greed or simple mean-spirited nihilism". "Greed" would be something like rushing biosomething into production and distribution before adequate, exhaustive testing is completed. |
"This is the forest primeval...." |
| Edited by - Sea Sorbust on 12/01/2003 09:11:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:09:34 [Permalink]
|
Sea Sorbust wrote:quote:
You are very wrong and extremely short-sighted, Dave. Can't imagine who, looking at likely, if not long-term certain, down side of biological research and implementation, would not call the money-grubbing, glory-seeking molecular biologists "foof-headed". Heads full of foamy foof.
This is exactly the kind of hyperbole I was talking about. It appears that you believe that 100% of Federally-funded biomedical research is going into creating potentially-dangerous microbes. Instead, much of it goes into basic disease research (or so it appears thanks to one of Tim's links - and yes, Tim, there are major problems with the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and yes, the whole comparison to NEOs is worthless, anyway, since biomedical research and NASA put together make up a small fraction of the total Federal budget; claiming we need to fund one or the other is a false dichotomy).quote:
One mistake in either microbial design and manufacture could easily wipe out most of humanity, saving only isolated pockets such as the Australian "aboriginies" or tightly secluded mountain nations. A single mistake in genetically modifying a food stuff such as soybeans could render that food useless, or even biodamaging, with nearly unimaginable "ripple effects" in systemic food-production.
Yeah, nevermind the fact that the Earth itself is one gigantic incubator, randomly slapping genes together (as it has been for 4 billion years). What next, oh hypoerbolic one? Are you going to call for Federal funding to put a stop to evolution?quote:
My objections are the wasting of public and private moneys that could be put to better use.
And my objections are identical to yours.quote:
While the longterm goal should be Mars, we luckily have Moon just sitting there begging to be colonized and to house early warning asteroidal/comet hunting telescopes.
And this is more important than, for example, population control because...?quote:
Maybe 20 years ago made sense to ignore Venus but now we know about
"invisible" impactors coming in from Sun...
Do we? Like what? If they're invisible, how do we know anything about them?quote:
...and so called "extremophiles", microbial lifeforms which live under extreme conditions.
None of which were created by "foof-headed medicoes."quote:
Nor to discount the possibility that a "potential" impactor is guided! Not speaking of 'space aliens'---also not discounting possibility---but observing that we, U.S. of A., took a long break from space efforts while some other nations did not take break...
Snipped the rest.
Years ago, I read a science fiction story in which there were all sorts of huge space stations orbiting Earth, and to gain their independence from the various ground-based governments, they dropped asteroids from orbit. It was their only weapon, and damned effective.
Of course, if a country has the technology to fling a big rock at a 100-mile-wide target on Earth, we can also assume they've got the technology to paint it with a much-less-reflective coating than asteroids usually have naturally. We cannot possibly defend against an invisible guided rock, especially since the hypothetical attackers will also be smart enough to have their weapon avoid crossing in front of any planet (against which we might detect it), until such a time as any response we might be able to make would be ineffectual.
Anyway, since you're bringing up possibilities for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and have dismissed all medical research as dangerous (whether it is or not), there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion further, at least on my part. Were I to have my druthers, I'd split the budget up based on the most-pressing needs of the population. I'm fairly sure you'd do the same, but because there might be SARS-farting, nuclear-tipped unicorns out there (the U.S. has never adequately funded unicorn technology research), you'd spend part of the money trying to find a defense against them. I wouldn't, because the risks are so low as to be non-existent.
I would, however, fund "killer asteroid" research, but definitely not at the expense of eliminating medical research. I'd much rather eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, along with other programs I don't believe the government has any business funding anyway, first. Could probably come up with a lot of cash, that way. Of course, attempting such, I'd anger 99% of the taxpayers, and my budget would never pass Congress, but those are just pesky realities, and you appear to be less worried about reality than you are about "invisible" things which are possibly out to get you.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 12:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
It was the original attack in this thread, on the little "Planetary Society," (as if they were involved in a wicked* money making scheme, rather than promoting space exploration, which is what they do,) that was weird.
* As opposed to a good money making scheme for them, which is OK with me.
Mr. Chippewa: Innocent i am.
sent u a long post telling u that. it is rotten corupt government that i called guilty. I LIKE the Planetary Society even tho i don't think we'll ever get manned mission to mars.
Only posted this for Sea Sorbust who was not a member then and didn't think that she should join. SHE thinks that we HAVE TO go to mars.  |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
|
|
|
PruplePanther
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 12:43:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And PruplePanther appears to agree. I put the "properly" in quotes because it seemed obvious (to me, that is) that the two above-mentioned posters see any drop in funding as "bribery and corruption."
True Dave. It was the government i was acusing of "bribery and corruption" but it's not true that i think ANY drop in funding is B&C.
ONly posted this for 'orbust because she wasnt a member and didnt want to join. She thought she might get into deep hot water. She can be harsh. And pushy.
I dont think that we Americans will ever get to mars. But i also think HAHAHAHAHA yes i'm serious HAHAHAHA that there already ARE humans on mars.  Not sure that they'll ever get back home to earth tho. |
"If I don't know where we are, I can't plot a course home." Major Carter, SG-1 |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 18:19:24 [Permalink]
|
I think we will eventually have to get to Mars, for our very survival. Unless we can buld completely artificial habitats, ala The High Frontier.
I believe that there is only one living organism on this planet, and it is the whole planet. Humankind represents the reproductive function of the Planetary Organism, i.e., if we were to terraform and/or colonize another planet (be it Mars or some other), we will have effectively reproduced the Earth. If we don't do this, then our only function will be as a planetary cancerous disease.
Now don't get me wrong; I don't believe that our role as planetary reproductive organs was preordained by some divine angency. It's just a matter of function, like ovaries or testicles. It's just the nature of living things to want to reproduce, and how else can a planetary organism do that except through a specie like us? Sort of a global mitosis.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 18:41:56 [Permalink]
|
"Foof-headed?" How many of these foofs do you actually know, Sea?
I've worked in biotech, directly for molecular scientists. They were, without exception, some of the smartest and most decent people I've worked for. I'd love to go back to my job there, but unfortunately it no longer exists.
I support our space program and science education/research in general. I can't embrace the Chicken Little-ism inherent in worrying about what horrible things we "might" develop. Biomedicine improves and saves lives every day. Hell, I might have died from my last sinus infection had I not taken antibiotics.
I just realized I'm arguing via the Internet with someone who thinks we should colonize Mars because evil scientists might try and kill us all. Good grief. I need a life.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
