Malazan Empire: The Space Program - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Space Program Do we keep spending the money?

#21 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 19 July 2011 - 06:27 AM

Quote

Deride? No, there is something to be admired in Republican branding, it certainly works. Do I disagree? Hell yes, but I can't disagree that it convinces most ignorant people. Death tax, death panels, they label things very well to sell their view.

Wealthy people don't create jobs in the U.S. anymore, they ship them off and downsize to make bigger profits. This discussion is not prudent to this topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to show how well this particular branding had done amongst the echo-chamber. No intelligent person buys supply-side economis which is all that this is, but if they can re-brand it as something else.... who knows?

I was actually trying to be a bit generous. If I was "wealthy" I'd have no problem be taxed to high-heaven. 90% for those who make so much they no longer know what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. My mind wouldn't change you see because I feel some sort of compulsion to help and support my fellow man. "Wealth changes people": maybe, but if it changes them into those sort of people that forget how it was to be middle-class or worse then they were probably shits to begin with forget them. If they were wealthy to begin with, then they haven't changed at all and shouldn't know any differently. Which is why I understand how 5% or so of the richest people vote.




lol, Republican branding. Its politic's amigo, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Independent, the list goes on, and yet branding things to sway public opinion belongs to all of them. Regardless of a viewpoint, its all about selling to the public to maximize your target. Much like NASA, too many people weren't sold that it was a valuable asset, thus its funding was cut. You mentioned outsourcing as well, but the current government plan (which was Democrat controlled in senate, house, and oval office when the decision was made) is to send our Astronauts to Russia for (last I saw) $64 million a seat to get to the ISS. So outsourcing is a problem, and I couldn't agree more. However outsourcing is being done by the need for companies to maintain profits, in a climate that makes it far to expensive for them to operate in the U.S. they don't have to pay as much in taxes overseas as they do here.


As mentioned above in my original post, Economics is a very very tricky thing. To get the firmest understanding of it, you cant target an individual aspect of it, like this has been doing. This board is definitely not the placement for a full on economic debate, though I could go on with one.


If your one of the .00000000001% of the population that could win a $250 million lottery, and give it all away to an unknown and uncontrollable purpose, or to a charity, or non-profit organization of whatever choosing. Then I hands down truly (I know you cant tell from text as its not the best medium for conveying truthfulness) truly applaud you. The grand majority of people find it easy to make this claim, but about the time they found themselves in some money, would decide to use it for "this, and this, and this first, and oh wait I might as well get this while I'm at it and... oh hell I'll just give away whats left when I'm done making my life better" Since I just watched "The Core" the other day, a line from that movie is a good analogy. The weapons specialist makes comment about his family "I'm not trying to save the whole world, just 3 of them" which is exactly how most people are, they just want to take care of the people they are close to. So I applaud you if your the person that's trying to save the whole world, its a very selfless and noble task.


With that, and other than your implication that people of my views are ignorant (though I've not been negative to your views, only trying to understand them) I conclude this posting of mine, though I'll still be watching the topic.


just my two cents...




You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

#22 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,684
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 19 July 2011 - 06:38 AM

I didn't say you were ignorant. I stated that Republican branding does a good job of convincing ignorant people of things. If you consider yourself to be someone who doesn't know what they are saying and simply fall in line with the first thing you hear that comforts you, then I'd disagree as you can argue why you feel the way you do.

Then again, you are stepping into the DB with no prior knowledge of other arguments, so I guess it's understandable you think it's coming from a place of "derision" or "anger."
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#23 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 19 July 2011 - 07:16 AM

View Postworrywort, on 19 July 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

1) Speculation. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being wealthy, and perhaps Americans (Westerners?) partake in the delusion that they might become wealthy someday, but I don't think much of that applies to people worldwide (the billions in China? India? Africa?). But I imagine most people actually want to earn a middle class living doing something they enjoy doing (or at least value doing), without the worry that one or two unfortunate events would take them down to subsistence level or below. People might wish they could indulge in some of the leisure and luxury benefits of the ultra-rich, but what they want more than that (by quite a wide margin, I'd also speculate) is comfort and security.

No complaints from me on the this point, I agree with you, I'm not a majority by any means but certainly all im looking for in life is comfort and security, though being income-less and living odd-job to odd-job makes it pretty effin hard for me. Truth be told, I haven't eaten in about 4 days now, so I can conserve my money while looking for jobs.

2) As they should, and more. If we look at the numbers, "the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes." (source: http://www.csmonitor...do-they-pay-now). It only makes sense that if you want to accomplish something that requires a lot of money, then you would collect it from those who have the vast majority of it. Also, people get refunds on the taxes they've prepaid, but it doesn't mean they get 100% of that amount in the refund. The claim that most people don't pay taxes is absolutely false. Even if you limit that to federal income tax, more than 50% of people wind up owing. And if that's still too low a number, it might be better to start determining why people are falling out of the middle class, instead of fudging the lines of where the middle class starts (not suggesting you personally made that argument). Cuz frankly, $21 billion spread across 150,000,000 people just isn't an impressive number at all.

the $21 billion thing was just an example. Though this being a topic about the space program, to put the unimpressive $21 Billion in perspective "NASA announced Thursday an $18.69 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 to advance Earth science, complete the International Space Station, explore the solar system and conduct aeronautics research." http://www.nasa.gov/...2010Budget.html

As for the refunds part, http://money.cnn.com...efund/index.htm indicated $328 Billion was returned to approx 110 million americans, avg $3003 each. The part of this that's muddied though, is that most people that get the tax refunds, very rarely have even paid that amount into taxes, and also are already supported by the government with housing and food related assistance, yet that was given $176 billion in the 2011 Budget http://www.census.go...les/11s0471.pdf while medicare was another $457 Billion. Dont get me wrong, the humanitarian programs are wonderful. Though personally I feel they are abused.

3) Lots of factors and people drive the economy, but (some of) the wealthy sure would like to maintain a stranglehold on it, that's for sure. I wouldn't consider the majority of business owners wealthy, and in fact small businesses make up about 99.9% of all businesses (source: http://www.sba.gov/c...esses-are-there). Perhaps one place we would agree (I hope) is that it's kind of silly to lump the people making $250,000 a year or so with those making say, $1,000,000 or even $500k. Which isn't to say the 250k are taxed too highly IMO, but the others aren't taxed remotely highly enough (we may start disagreeing there). And of course, things like having kids and paying tuitions are already compensated for among the tax adjustments, so that's always a pretty lame complaint. And as we know, if you make $255,000 in a year, only that $5,001 is gonna be taxed that highest rate. But I mean, all that said, I wouldn't be mad at establishing a new bracket or two among the top 1% in the country, though I'm not aware of any such momentum among either Dems or Repubs. I'm not sure why you brought up "working hard" since there's no particular correlation between effort and income. And those hypothetical tax brackets, even if you're just using them for comparative purposes, are so unreal they distort more than they help. The real world difference between those tax brackets are people living at or below our lowest reasonable standard of living level and people so rich they don't actually exist; but let's apply them to the top earners who do exist...the average income of the top 1% is about $1.3 million (with pretty wide variation, but you know). If you taxed them at 40% (which didn't happen before Bush's tax cuts anyway), they'd still have $800,000 to spend or whatever. In a year. You'll have to forgive me if their complaints fall on deaf ears.

Those tax brackets were for comparative purposes. Yes, they were a little out of focus, I should have done a better example. The main goal was to show that if your a wealthy individual, and your taxes keep getting raised while your trying to increase your income, you eventually find yourself where you might as well just stop trying, because your not making any more than you would have otherwise. In essence you just stop giving a damn. Now that you've quit giving a damn, your not trying to expand or increase what your doing anymore because its of no benefit to you. Without increasing or expanding the job market becomes stagnant. Stagnant job market leads to lack of jobs, leads to lack of employed, leads to more people falling back on government assistance, leads to higher taxes to pay for more humanitarian aid. ad infinitum. IMHO

None of that is to say I don't value money. I like it, having it, using it, etc. All good. But if you're angry that your $500k became $300k, you're living your life wrong. You only get the one and you're missing the big picture. Likewise, and it may sound cheesy but I consider it true anyway, collectively we've only got the one world. And running it with money or wealth as the bottom line is shortsighted, petty, and ultimately a dead end. It's not healthy physically or emotionally, it's not rational, and it's not even utilitarian, even if it's couched in that language.

I agree. However not everyone sees the ridiculousness of the whole thing. Greed has been around as long as human civilization, people always want more than they have, and the wealthy are no different. Once a person gets a taste of a lifestyle, they don't want to lose it, once they get accustomed to it, they will start to think of what they could do if they only had a little more, and it grows from there. (Similar to what the Errant did in the series. He was accustomed to playing with the royal family, then he started wanting more.)

I could be wrong about all of this, however:





Your very interesting and fun to talk with Worrywort. Thanks for the nicely worded post.

just my two cents..
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
1

#24 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 19 July 2011 - 07:28 AM

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 19 July 2011 - 06:38 AM, said:

I didn't say you were ignorant. I stated that Republican branding does a good job of convincing ignorant people of things. If you consider yourself to be someone who doesn't know what they are saying and simply fall in line with the first thing you hear that comforts you, then I'd disagree as you can argue why you feel the way you do.

Then again, you are stepping into the DB with no prior knowledge of other arguments, so I guess it's understandable you think it's coming from a place of "derision" or "anger."


No offense meant HoosierDaddy, I'm still fairly new to these forums, and haven't interacted with everyone enough to get a feel for people. Also, text is a horrible medium for communicating with people sometimes, since any and all non-written information is left up to perception of the reader. Makes it harder to understand whether its calm rhetoric or angry derision.

You have many a valid point, and I am never against learning new things. I'm actually not tied to any party/movement/brand, I tend to follow how I perceive things as working.

As an example, I was in a horribly awkward conversation with my cousin the other night about the benefits of the Space program, and he made a point that I couldn't refute. He maintained that all NASA needed to do was maintain the think tank for "what we need in order to do this in space" but not actually do anything in space, since all NASA technology is essentially conceptualized, designed, and tested here on earth, therefore negating (in his mind) the usefulness of even going into space, until we have explored every last nook and cranny of the earth and oceans.

Hard to refute it, and I tried for 3 hours, the part I couldnt get him to accept, is that a think tank is only as good as the importance of what they are working on. Astronaut lives were at stake, and they knew it, if it had been all 'pretend' the ramifications of miscalculation, and not thinking everything through, would have never been a factor to think of absolutely everything. IMHO

just my 2 cents...
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

#25 User is offline   Adjutant Stormy~ 

  • Captain, Team Quick Ben
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 1,344
  • Joined: 24-January 08

Posted 19 July 2011 - 07:32 AM

To worry's comments, quoted above:

The tax brackets, being fixed, have constituted a continuous drop in tax revenue. However, the very rich represent a very small number of powerful people, people who are more willing, and vastly more capable, of weaponizing that wealth. With great wealth does not come great responsibility, with it comes great power and great whimsy.

But honestly, back to the original topic: I really do think that there needs to be a culture-change in the rich (who, I'll admit, drive the nation's economy as in hold the steering wheel), towards building and efficiency. Which means that we need fewer MBAs running companies, and more people who actually know how to do industry. We need more investment and less profit. More NASA and less Defense Budget.

That's just my personal bias, though.
<!--quoteo(post=462161:date=Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM:name=Aptorian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aptorian @ Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=462161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->God damn. Mighty drunk. Must ... what is the english movement movement movement for drunk... with out you seemimg drunk?

bla bla bla

Peopleare harrasing me... grrrrrh.

Also people with big noses aren't jews, they're just french

EDIT: We has editted so mucj that5 we're not quite sure... also, leave britney alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1

#26 User is offline   Primateus 

  • E Pluribus Anus
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,180
  • Joined: 03-July 10
  • Location:A bigger town, but still small.
  • Interests:Stuff, lots of stuff!

Posted 19 July 2011 - 07:54 AM

View PostDaemonwolf, on 19 July 2011 - 07:28 AM, said:

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 19 July 2011 - 06:38 AM, said:

I didn't say you were ignorant. I stated that Republican branding does a good job of convincing ignorant people of things. If you consider yourself to be someone who doesn't know what they are saying and simply fall in line with the first thing you hear that comforts you, then I'd disagree as you can argue why you feel the way you do.

Then again, you are stepping into the DB with no prior knowledge of other arguments, so I guess it's understandable you think it's coming from a place of "derision" or "anger."


No offense meant HoosierDaddy, I'm still fairly new to these forums, and haven't interacted with everyone enough to get a feel for people. Also, text is a horrible medium for communicating with people sometimes, since any and all non-written information is left up to perception of the reader. Makes it harder to understand whether its calm rhetoric or angry derision.

You have many a valid point, and I am never against learning new things. I'm actually not tied to any party/movement/brand, I tend to follow how I perceive things as working.

As an example, I was in a horribly awkward conversation with my cousin the other night about the benefits of the Space program, and he made a point that I couldn't refute. He maintained that all NASA needed to do was maintain the think tank for "what we need in order to do this in space" but not actually do anything in space, since all NASA technology is essentially conceptualized, designed, and tested here on earth, therefore negating (in his mind) the usefulness of even going into space, until we have explored every last nook and cranny of the earth and oceans.

Hard to refute it, and I tried for 3 hours, the part I couldnt get him to accept, is that a think tank is only as good as the importance of what they are working on. Astronaut lives were at stake, and they knew it, if it had been all 'pretend' the ramifications of miscalculation, and not thinking everything through, would have never been a factor to think of absolutely everything. IMHO

just my 2 cents...



Wasn't velcro basically an emergency solution to a problem they hadn't anticipated? And look at the monstrously huge success it's been.

Saying all we need is the think tank is simply stupid, it implies that you aren't really considering those unexpected situations.
Screw you all, and have a nice day!

0

#27 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 19,055
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:25 PM

View PostAdjutant Stormy, on 19 July 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

To worry's comments, quoted above:

The tax brackets, being fixed, have constituted a continuous drop in tax revenue. However, the very rich represent a very small number of powerful people, people who are more willing, and vastly more capable, of weaponizing that wealth. With great wealth does not come great responsibility, with it comes great power and great whimsy.

But honestly, back to the original topic: I really do think that there needs to be a culture-change in the rich (who, I'll admit, drive the nation's economy as in hold the steering wheel), towards building and efficiency. Which means that we need fewer MBAs running companies, and more people who actually know how to do industry. We need more investment and less profit. More NASA and less Defense Budget.

That's just my personal bias, though.



This is really well put.

Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th the idea of using wealth to delve deep into science and try to further learn about and re-invent our world itself was considered as note of distinction. It's why societies like the Royal Geographic Society in Britain flourished so much during that time. These were important people doing important things to further humanity...somewhere along the line the USA (amongst other countries) have left that behind to bump defense and other aspects of "looking inwardly" at their country. Instead they ought to be looking outward at humanity as a whole. It's kind of sad that people like that don't exist anymore in North America. They still exist somewhat in other countries, but to a lesser degree.

At what point did society start to stagnate and think that we can't progress further? I actually think some of the greatest things mankind will do on this planet have yet to come...and if we can only GET there....what a world this could be.

My little rant here reminds me of the documentary THE 11TH HOUR...which is a good chunk of science and prophecy for the first half...but the second half is mesmerizing about that idea of re-design design itself and inventing things that are good for the environment as opposed to things that take from it. Which I know is a bit off topic, but it's still to do with the USA spending money on shit it shouldn't be...while furthering us down a hole. The Space program is a BIG middle finger to science and exploration as a whole.

Any own a swiffer? I am staggered that this was invented in the 1990's (a decade KNOWN for environmental awareness), where every time you use this to sweep you throw away a cloth....instead of a little elbow grease and an effing BROOM. It just melts my brain that things like this are being invented to create more waste...to make life a tad easier.

...but the goddamned space program gets cancelled? Just annoyed by the whole thing.


This post has been edited by King Kazma: 19 July 2011 - 05:36 PM

"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#28 User is offline   Darkwatch 

  • A Strange Human
  • Group: The Most Holy and Exalted Inquis
  • Posts: 2,190
  • Joined: 21-February 03
  • Location:MACS0647-JD
  • 1.6180339887

Posted 19 July 2011 - 10:25 PM

The problem is not just the rich but, also the general population.
Most people I know (not my friends) don't care much about space. What does it offer them? What gratification? What reward? Space is too far, out of touch with them, no impact on their life (that they care about).
To them space is (and they are partially right) and empty and silent void.
Getting back to space means getting people interested again. It means connecting them to space. That is the challenge, to shake off the massif weight of indifference.
What was there left after the Moon? We managed to set foot on one lifeless rock, why waste more effort on more of the same? Only isolated academics and nerds care about that geology, astrophysics and cosmology.
What's needed is inspiration. A massive dose of inspiration.
The Pub is Always Open

Proud supporter of the Wolves of Winter. Glory be to her Majesty, The Lady Snow.
Cursed Summer returns. The Lady Now Sleeps.

The Sexy Thatch Burning Physicist

Τον Πρωτος Αληθη Δεσποτην της Οικιας Αυτος

RodeoRanch said:

You're a rock.
A non-touching itself rock.
0

#29 User is offline   shikkaka 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 19 July 2011 - 11:23 PM

I think space exploration is important but needs a lot of technologies that don't exist right now (propulsion). Once those are ready for testing, its time to get cracking again. NASA, IMO, has suffered from a huge lack of direction. They have too many simultaneous goals. NASA either needs to be re-invigorated with some fresh leadership (who encourage innovation and goals over increasing their budget) or the private sector should pick up the slack. Frankly, large contracting companies have always been a huge source of innovation and development for the US and the world (Bell Labs, anyone?). In that case, NASA would take on a more administrative role (Kind of like the FAA, I suppose).
0

#30 User is offline   Adjutant Stormy~ 

  • Captain, Team Quick Ben
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 1,344
  • Joined: 24-January 08

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:15 AM

@Darkwatch:

The reason I suggest a culture shift in the rich, is that they constitute a small fraction of the population, but have more impact. If you get powerful people on board, you can get the powerful people to move the little people. The influential to sway the masses.

@shikkaka:

NASA has been stuck with a terrible catch 22 for a long time, which is that in order to get big-flashy-projects on the docket, they need money. But nobody's going to fund the boring stuff, unless they see a big-flashy-project getting done.

And the private sector is too conservative to risk the kind of money we're talking about. The role of NASA, at its establishment, was (colloquially) to get the smartest, most capable people together and make the impossible, possible. And the feds footed the bill. That's not to say that private-sector research had nothing to do with it. But the feds paid for it, and set the guidelines, and placed the orders.
<!--quoteo(post=462161:date=Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM:name=Aptorian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aptorian @ Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=462161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->God damn. Mighty drunk. Must ... what is the english movement movement movement for drunk... with out you seemimg drunk?

bla bla bla

Peopleare harrasing me... grrrrrh.

Also people with big noses aren't jews, they're just french

EDIT: We has editted so mucj that5 we're not quite sure... also, leave britney alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2

#31 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 20 July 2011 - 03:06 AM

View PostAdjutant Stormy, on 20 July 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

@Darkwatch:

The reason I suggest a culture shift in the rich, is that they constitute a small fraction of the population, but have more impact. If you get powerful people on board, you can get the powerful people to move the little people. The influential to sway the masses.

@shikkaka:

NASA has been stuck with a terrible catch 22 for a long time, which is that in order to get big-flashy-projects on the docket, they need money. But nobody's going to fund the boring stuff, unless they see a big-flashy-project getting done.

And the private sector is too conservative to risk the kind of money we're talking about. The role of NASA, at its establishment, was (colloquially) to get the smartest, most capable people together and make the impossible, possible. And the feds footed the bill. That's not to say that private-sector research had nothing to do with it. But the feds paid for it, and set the guidelines, and placed the orders.


Good observations!
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

#32 User is offline   Gothos 

  • Map painting expert
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,403
  • Joined: 01-January 03
  • Location:Sol III

Posted 20 July 2011 - 06:22 AM

Ultimately, the most important aspect of space exploration is our survival as a species. Like it or not, but not even Shinrei can argue against this - as time goes on, we WILL need to step into space to survive, or rot here among dwindling resources, cramped up like sardines, tied in innumerous war over said resources and space...
Oceans and the Earth's crust can only get us that far. In 200 years, even in 500, we'll have to set off into the black void on a massive scale. Actually, the sooner, the better.

But even survival aside, what's happened to human curiousity? I thought that 'the rich' are so rich so they could do grand stuff that ordinary people can't, someone who thinks about more than just watching another big brother clone for another pathethic afternoon. It's a shame that the 'more' in that previous sentence seems to mean only stocks and profits.

Personally, I think the various space programs across the globe are pretty much the best thing humankind did ever since inventing cities to be able to brew more beer. Perhaps the chinese program will kick them americants out of complacency and a new race will begin? I hope so. Even better if they actually cooperated.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
0

#33 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 19,055
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:06 PM

View PostGothos, on 20 July 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

Ultimately, the most important aspect of space exploration is our survival as a species. Like it or not, but not even Shinrei can argue against this - as time goes on, we WILL need to step into space to survive, or rot here among dwindling resources, cramped up like sardines, tied in innumerous war over said resources and space...
Oceans and the Earth's crust can only get us that far. In 200 years, even in 500, we'll have to set off into the black void on a massive scale. Actually, the sooner, the better.

But even survival aside, what's happened to human curiousity? I thought that 'the rich' are so rich so they could do grand stuff that ordinary people can't, someone who thinks about more than just watching another big brother clone for another pathethic afternoon. It's a shame that the 'more' in that previous sentence seems to mean only stocks and profits.

Personally, I think the various space programs across the globe are pretty much the best thing humankind did ever since inventing cities to be able to brew more beer. Perhaps the chinese program will kick them americants out of complacency and a new race will begin? I hope so. Even better if they actually cooperated.


What's good about that is we can leave to the stars and let the earth regenerate herself (in effect take herself back from us), so that one day thousands of years down the line it will be habitable again.
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#34 User is offline   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,110
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:36 PM

Or you know, we could just cut our own population down to 10-50-100 million... What? Somebody had to say it.
0

#35 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 19,055
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:42 PM

View PostPennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Or you know, we could just cut our own population down to 10-50-100 million... What? Somebody had to say it.


*points at Apt*

Is Apt is ordering population death squads?

;)
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#36 User is offline   shikkaka 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 20 July 2011 - 02:46 PM

View PostAdjutant Stormy, on 20 July 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:


@shikkaka:

NASA has been stuck with a terrible catch 22 for a long time, which is that in order to get big-flashy-projects on the docket, they need money. But nobody's going to fund the boring stuff, unless they see a big-flashy-project getting done.

And the private sector is too conservative to risk the kind of money we're talking about. The role of NASA, at its establishment, was (colloquially) to get the smartest, most capable people together and make the impossible, possible. And the feds footed the bill. That's not to say that private-sector research had nothing to do with it. But the feds paid for it, and set the guidelines, and placed the orders.


I never thought about it that way. The NASA I am familiar with is the boring one. haha
0

#37 User is offline   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,110
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 20 July 2011 - 03:36 PM

View PostKing Kazma, on 20 July 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

View PostPennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Or you know, we could just cut our own population down to 10-50-100 million... What? Somebody had to say it.


*points at Apt*

Is Apt is ordering population death squads?

;)


No, more like urging people to make some room.

But... just for the record,... what is your address and at what time do you usually leave your domicile?
0

#38 User is offline   QuickTidal 

  • General Kenobi
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 19,055
  • Joined: 05-November 05
  • Location:Winden
  • Interests:Sith Beatdowns

Posted 20 July 2011 - 03:49 PM

View PostPennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

View PostKing Kazma, on 20 July 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

View PostPennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Or you know, we could just cut our own population down to 10-50-100 million... What? Somebody had to say it.


*points at Apt*

Is Apt is ordering population death squads?

;)


No, more like urging people to make some room.

But... just for the record,... what is your address and at what time do you usually leave your domicile?


Haha! I live at 123 Fake Street in Springfield....I'm usually out between the hours of 4 and 5 AM...collecting fallen leaves and fine bits of gravel.

;)
"When the last tree has fallen, and the rivers are poisoned, you cannot eat money, oh no." ~Aurora
0

#39 User is offline   Gothos 

  • Map painting expert
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 5,403
  • Joined: 01-January 03
  • Location:Sol III

Posted 20 July 2011 - 04:19 PM

View Postshikkaka, on 20 July 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

View PostAdjutant Stormy, on 20 July 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:


@shikkaka:

NASA has been stuck with a terrible catch 22 for a long time, which is that in order to get big-flashy-projects on the docket, they need money. But nobody's going to fund the boring stuff, unless they see a big-flashy-project getting done.

And the private sector is too conservative to risk the kind of money we're talking about. The role of NASA, at its establishment, was (colloquially) to get the smartest, most capable people together and make the impossible, possible. And the feds footed the bill. That's not to say that private-sector research had nothing to do with it. But the feds paid for it, and set the guidelines, and placed the orders.


I never thought about it that way. The NASA I am familiar with is the boring one. haha


When did riding several tonnes of high explosives into an empty void become boring?
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
1

#40 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 20 July 2011 - 05:05 PM

Lol, Gothos. I have to agree though. If you ever have the opportunity to go to Kennedy Space Center for a couple of days, they have quite a lot of interactive exhibits. One of which 'simulates' a launch with you being one of the astronauts.

Real world though, the shuttles in order to launch and break orbit had to generate 7.5 million pounds of thrust. Being strapped to that would be awesome! Having stood on the NASA Causeway for the launch of STS-130 (the final night time launch) I can't begin to describe how utterly amazing it is to see.
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users