Unmanned SUV ridiculous NASA relevance debate thread
#41
All that damn money and they couldn't use a damn color camera?!
They were looking for a route to the west indies when Columbus sailed west. The educated population also already knew the earth was (somewhat) spherical. Their cost to send a ship and some disposable people was pretty low, with a huge possible pay off. Low initial cost, possibly huge reward (if they didn't die in the process). NASA costs billions, with little or no practical knowledge that couldn't have been created by an earth-bound engineer at a desk.
They were looking for a route to the west indies when Columbus sailed west. The educated population also already knew the earth was (somewhat) spherical. Their cost to send a ship and some disposable people was pretty low, with a huge possible pay off. Low initial cost, possibly huge reward (if they didn't die in the process). NASA costs billions, with little or no practical knowledge that couldn't have been created by an earth-bound engineer at a desk.
NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society
I'll never understand how people can type this, it's like saying "ERHMEGERWD! ARPANET WAS WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!" while typing on a website.
#42
Uh...
NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society
I'll never understand how people can type this, it's like saying "ERHMEGERWD! ARPANET WAS WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!" while typing on a website.
NASA - Space Program Benefits: NASA?s Positive Impact on Society
I'll never understand how people can type this, it's like saying "ERHMEGERWD! ARPANET WAS WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF MONEY!" while typing on a website.
Yes, nasa figured stuff out. I'm saying if you gave a team of engineers less money they could do the same, from the safety of a desk.
#47
Putting up a satellite is a lot different than a space station, or going to the moon. You know that. Most weather analysis is done by radar. That's why is still sucks.
Everything ever, not-made by NASA, was created through this process, or simpler ones.
#50
Putting up a satellite is a lot different than a space station, or going to the moon
Secondly, I'll take him a lot more seriously when he manages to make a cogent counter-argument about GPS alone. In fact, let me quote what he claims GPS is...
Putting up a satellite is a lot different than a space station,
#52
Originally Posted by blaen99
however, his claims so far after repeated reading of his posts have been exclusively that NASA was only able to create manned space flight, with the rest of the benefits from NASA that other people would have been able to create in safer conditions, and for less money.
#53
Secondly, I'll take him a lot more seriously when he manages to make a cogent counter-argument about GPS alone. In fact, let me quote what he claims GPS is...
which demonstrates a substantial and basic scientific misunderstanding both as to what GPS is and in fact about space flight in general.
which demonstrates a substantial and basic scientific misunderstanding both as to what GPS is and in fact about space flight in general.
Things like, circuit boards, the wheel, penicillin, carbon fiber, and rocket technology (which is what NASA and it's predecessor needed to even begin THINKING about space), were all made on earth.
Actually, everything NASA builds and discovers is on earth. If they simply pretend to need to go to space, and accomplish a specific task there, they could do the engineering here on earth (like they already do), and save the money they spend on their "proof of concept" experiments, ie: space travel.
#54
Let's turn it around:
Are you claiming it's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible? Or astronaut ice cream? Or Tang?
#55
Germany "could" have launched satellites into orbit during WWII. It's not particularly hard to chuck something into space. Put it on an ICBM, hit "launch". Putting up satellites for triangulation (the basic function of GPS) is a LOT different (and cheaper) than building a floating apartment for 10 people.
Things like, circuit boards, the wheel, penicillin, carbon fiber, and rocket technology (which is what NASA and it's predecessor needed to even begin THINKING about space), were all made on earth.
Actually, everything NASA builds and discovers is on earth. If they simply pretend to need to go to space, and accomplish a specific task there, they could do the engineering here on earth (like they already do), and save the money they spend on their "proof of concept" experiments, ie: space travel.
Things like, circuit boards, the wheel, penicillin, carbon fiber, and rocket technology (which is what NASA and it's predecessor needed to even begin THINKING about space), were all made on earth.
Actually, everything NASA builds and discovers is on earth. If they simply pretend to need to go to space, and accomplish a specific task there, they could do the engineering here on earth (like they already do), and save the money they spend on their "proof of concept" experiments, ie: space travel.
None of the people you have quoted could have enabled geosynchronous or geostationary orbit (Or, for that matter, similar orbits of which there are a large amount) without an analogue of NASA - something that is required of satellites, FYI.
Much of our current technology involved in satellites, or even past technology involved with them would have not been able to have been created without the knowledge gleaned from NASA.
Or are you telling me that we would have been able to launch multi-billion dollar satellites into space, into geostationary orbit, at a relatively economical cost...on our first try? Second try? Just trying to say that implies a substantial lack of knowledge about engineering, and even science as a whole. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to be involved in testing those theories. The argument that we'd have them without NASA or a NASA-analogue is crazy, and requires a substantial misunderstanding of how this process works.
Make a cogent argument. You started this by saying that he was claiming that all NASA has done was put people in space, which is clearly not what he said, as was just demonstrated.
Let's turn it around:
Are you claiming it's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible? Or astronaut ice cream? Or Tang?
Let's turn it around:
Are you claiming it's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible? Or astronaut ice cream? Or Tang?
#57
Again, you have a substantial and fundamental lack of understanding of the science involved.
None of the people you have quoted could have enabled geosynchronous or geostationary orbit (Or, for that matter, similar orbits of which there are a large amount) without an analogue of NASA - something that is required of satellites, FYI.
None of the people you have quoted could have enabled geosynchronous or geostationary orbit (Or, for that matter, similar orbits of which there are a large amount) without an analogue of NASA - something that is required of satellites, FYI.
Much of our current technology involved in satellites, or even past technology involved with them would have not been able to have been created without the knowledge gleaned from NASA.
Or are you telling me that we would have been able to launch multi-billion dollar satellites into space, into geostationary orbit, at a relatively economical cost...on our first try? Second try? Just trying to say that implies a substantial lack of knowledge about engineering, and even science as a whole. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to be involved in testing those theories. The argument that we'd have them without NASA or a NASA-analogue is crazy, and requires a substantial misunderstanding of how this process works.
Or are you telling me that we would have been able to launch multi-billion dollar satellites into space, into geostationary orbit, at a relatively economical cost...on our first try? Second try? Just trying to say that implies a substantial lack of knowledge about engineering, and even science as a whole. Someone, somewhere, is going to have to be involved in testing those theories. The argument that we'd have them without NASA or a NASA-analogue is crazy, and requires a substantial misunderstanding of how this process works.
Isn't Virgin mobile trying to go into (low) space, commercially? A private company.
#58
And now you just went full retard, Mg. You aren't even bothering to read what I actually typed, as opposed to what you want to read. You should know better than most on here that the inverse of a statement is not always true.
Let's try it anyway. The original claim (made by 2ndGearRubber):
(Excluding men-in-space,) NASA's accomplishments could have possibly been done by someone else.
Proposition:
IF something is a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could have been done by someone else.
Inversion:
IF something is NOT a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.
This makes no sense -- nobody was claiming this. My question to you was certainly not any form of the inverse. What I asked you was to affirm or deny the negation. The negation, of course, is always untrue if the proposition is true, and always true if the proposition is untrue.
Negation:
IF something is a NASA accomplishment, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.
As I said before:
Are you claiming:
It's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible
It's impossible that anyone other than NASA could have created the technology that made GPS possible
IF GPS technology was made possible by NASA, THEN it could NOT have been done by someone else.
Affirm or deny, please.
#59
No[t] because we hadn't made enough, but because we didn't know enough about metallurgy and the physics involved. They work better now, not because we've had enough tries, but because the engineering is right. Trial and error works, but with proper engineering, you don't need it. We can now build an engine, or component, and have it be nearly perfect, first try.
See, that's the fun part of all this for me. You forget to address half of my statements, and yet, they are critical to the argument. If a NASA-analogue applies, then it invalidates your original-and-current claims. Let me elaborate on this. If not for NASA, how would the satellites get into space? Why, a NASA-analogue that could launch them into space? GPS came about directly due to NASA. GPS could have came about from a NASA-analogue, you are correct about that - but the moment you argue about a NASA-analogue, your argument falls apart. Sure, the Air Force could have developed a rocket, and all the associated stuff that NASA did...but that would still be a NASA-analogue. The moment you try to argue, basically, anything in space by a governmentally-run agency, your argument falls apart completely. Why? Well, let's rename NASA the...CHAIR FORCE, and have the CHAIR FORCE do everything NASA did but go to the moon. Are they still NASA? Basically, yeah. You are just renaming them and trying to pretend that it makes a substantial difference so your argument doesn't completely fall apart.
(Edit)
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber
If they simply pretend to need to go to space, and accomplish a specific task there, they could do the engineering here on earth (like they already do), and save the money they spend on their "proof of concept" experiments, ie: space travel.
(/Edit)
Sure, it's easy to get into space. It's incredibly easy. Except it's not dude. I've been intentionally overlooking your statements to hit you in this post with it. This is the part that makes me lololol at this entire argument. Getting a satellite into space is hard. Getting a satellite into a narrow orbit, in a very narrow and small area is far harder.
Now, I'm not talking about the new fad nanosatellites, or a Sputnik-esque orbit. That's not that hard with modern knowledge - difficult, yes, but not impossible for a dedicated hobbyist by any means. Getting them into a specific area, in a specific orbit, within a specific time is very, very hard. You aren't doing this without previous experience, and it doesn't matter what the math said - we still have problems to this day doing it, even if the math says it is perfect. Getting a GPS system (Which, notably, does not use a geosynchronous orbit, but rather a much more difficult one) right on your first try, with no prior experience, and without a great deal of prior knowledge? Yeah, and I can paint the Mona Lisa without any background in painting too.
What I don't get is that you somehow, seriously, think that we could make perfect launches into geosynchronous orbit without any previous experience. Because, apparently, it's just math. Apparently, it's just engineering. Even to this day, there are serious issues with space flight. We've been doing this over 50 years, and we still have serious issues in doing it. To try to argue what you are about GPS or even many of our modern satellites is just....wow.
Seriously, as rleete said, you ultimately really don't understand what you are talking about. You very clearly do not understand how engineering works and have made that pretty clear, and I seriously question both your scientific and mathematical understanding. At this point, I'm halfway expecting you to launch into a tirade about how the moon landing was a hoax.
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
Stuff
Last edited by blaen99; 08-08-2012 at 10:18 PM.
#60
Don't bother, Mg. You've demonstrated exactly why I stopped bothering to respond to you in the past, and I've given you multiple chances (as well as called you out on them) to stop twisting and manipulating what I was saying into something it wasn't in this thread alone. It's not worth trying to argue with someone who, even after being corrected multiple times, still refuses to stop twisting and manipulating arguments. Seriously, I'm completely disappointed - someone swore to me you've improved since then, you haven't.
Have you decided yet whether you meant the inverse or the contrapositive?
Because it was neither. It was the negation, as I demonstrated above.