Until we begin to adequately fund basic science (4.00 / 1)

I have a lot of trouble getting behind manned space exploration.  Every single project that doesn't have an immediate industrial or defense application is getting shut down, and here we go funding a trillion dollar project that will have a proportionately small impact on pushing science research forward.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:18:17 AM UTC

huh? (0.00 / 0)

NASA's entire budget (which includes science of course) is less than $20 billion/yr.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:31:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which is three or four times the entire NSF funding base (0.00 / 0)

Science is seriously underfunded.  And putting all of our bags into the space exploration basket is crazy.  Especially when there are many, many more worthwhile things that can be done.

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 16:14:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Space exploration, particularly a space elevator (4.00 / 2)

Get space exploration to the point where we've solved the difficulties of getting in and out of our gravity well, and the project itself would produce an enormous amount of basic scientific research. The discoveries and patents generated by previous space missions were collectively a huge boost to our technological advancement and industrial edge.

That's the thing about trying to tackle very large problems we haven't solved yet. The process generates a lot of basic research as a side effect. Yet it would also be in service to a definite project with obvious industrial application.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:30:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or we could fund literally thousands of other projects (0.00 / 0)

I'm not against funding NASA, I just think there are many, many more other worthwhile projects that can be funded, many of which would eventually also have runoff benefits.

And I don't disagree that we got plenty of great scientific benefit out of the NASA projects in the '60s, I"m just questioning whether the tremendous money spent (in the trillions in today's dollars) could have been better allocated to other scientific projects.

I"m in science, and unless you're doing nanotech, biotech, or some forms of chemistry, things are looking really bleak.  Expanding space exploration would inevitably make things look even more bleak for everyone not doing space exploration.  I don't think it's a good use of our dollars, unless we're going to at least increase funding for other basic science research.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 16:19:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fund the Apollo Alliance (0.00 / 0)

It's the real heir to the space program of the 60s.

http://apolloalliance.org/

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 16:37:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Space elevators (4.00 / 1)

Have a fatal problem.

The Van Allen belts will kill anyone using them. Rockets pass through the belts quickly so they aren't a problem for rocket passengers, but a much slower space elevator will kill all its passengers before reaching the Clarke orbit.

Unless you only want to move radiation-hardened cargo, space elevators are out. Lofstrom loops are still a possibility as far as I know, however.

---

by: cenobite @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:04:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to mention that it would have to be hardened (0.00 / 0)

against collisions from space junk moving at thousands of meters per second.  A screw doesn't sound scary, but you have to factor that said screw is moving faster than the fastest bullet in the world relative to a stationary object.  

If you're going to these lengths, I'd assume that you would be radiation-hardening the space elevator too.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 19:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a real problem (0.00 / 0)

but its one that any vehicle would face in trying to get into orbit. You're right that space junk is literally sealing us into to our own planet, but this is not a problem only for the space elevator to overcome.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 22:13:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It would be far worse for a stationary object (0.00 / 0)

I guess this is also a huge problem for space stations too. But any probability for collision is going to be proportional to time in orbit. So it's much worse for permanent structures than for vehicles.  

---

by: Valatan @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 23:22:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, if you are referring to the platform (4.00 / 1)

I think most plans call for it to be stationed at a height that is far out of range of most debris. The elevator itself would be exposed, but of course would not be stationary. The tether is exposed and stationary, but very slender...debris would have to hit it just right...

You know, with the discovery of "significant" quantities of water on the moon, it reminds me that the moon doesn't have the same problem with space debris, and of course not near as strong gravity. Perhaps the first space elevator will be built on the moon...?

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 23:59:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Patrick McGoohan was the original Prisoner (0.00 / 0)

James Cavaziel is the new Prisoner. He's no Patrick McGoohan.

Patrick was sardonic, cool,  Bondian even

Cavaziel is earnest, dreary and boring.  After all he was in Gibson's movie " the Passion of Christ"  The man has no sense of fun,irony and has an inflated sense of himself.  McGoohan never took himself seriously.  He was Bogart in Casablanca, not Cavaziel in the Passion of Christ"

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:50:37 AM UTC

The Space Elevator (0.00 / 0)

This year's competition just wrapped up, with real success:

http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:18:14 AM UTC

The Sabres notching a 2-1 shootout win (0.00 / 0)

Is making me smile.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 13:42:37 PM UTC

"The Calder Game" by Blue Balliett (0.00 / 0)

Third book by this children's author, but first I've read. She lives in Hyde Park and knows the U of Chicago Lab School where her trio of leading characters live, attend school, and solve mysteries that have an art theme. Pentominoes also play a role. The title refers to an interactive project held in conjunction with a large exhibition of Calder mobiles, and leads to the frantic search for their missing member, in England, on the grounds of Blenheim Palace! Such writing for young people makes me happy!  

---

by: Books Alive @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 13:58:22 PM UTC

Two days late… (0.00 / 0)

...but the second season of Mad Men. I don't have cable, so I'm a season behind. For those who may not know, it's set in 1961, at a Madison Ave ad agency (hence the title "MAD Men"). When Peggy Olsen--the new junior copywriter who's jumped from the secretarial pool and is trying to find her way in the office boys' club--utters the cliché, "Sex sells", rather unconvincingly to her boss, creative director Don Draper, he shuts it down with this bomb:

Says who?

Just so you know, the people who talk that way think that monkeys can do this. They take all this monkey crap and just stick it in a briefcase completely unaware that their success depends on something more than their shoeshine.

You are the product. You feeling something. That's what sells. Not them. Not sex. They can't do what we do, and they hate us for it.

 

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

---

by: tru blu @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 17:48:44 PM UTC