|
NASA
Jan 8, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 8, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070107/ap_on_sc/mars_lifeHere they go again, bringing up the "possibilities" in order to excite all the Star Trek fans thinking their bazillions of tax dollars are being spent on something, anything of value. I know NASA can be viewed as a stricktly American issue but being the largest of the small minority of space programs in the world, the international Star Trek fans rely heavily on them as well.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
NASA
Jan 11, 2007 9:46:50 GMT -5
Post by Kat on Jan 11, 2007 9:46:50 GMT -5
I'd rather my tax money be spent on NASA than anything else. If we don't develop the technology for space exploration, where do you think we're going to go when global warming turns Earth into a hothouse unfit for any living creature except roaches and orchids?
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 11, 2007 10:26:25 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 11, 2007 10:26:25 GMT -5
What makes more sense, staying here and developing technology that would help us survive the environment scenario that may occur OR developing technology so we can travel millions of miles to go to a planet that we know already has that environment scenario currently?
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 13:54:12 GMT -5
Post by jonathant on Jan 24, 2007 13:54:12 GMT -5
You guys make it sound like temperature is increasing daily. We and many generations will already be dead by the time global warming has a significant impact on the Earth -- if it even will have an impact.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 14:05:56 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 14:05:56 GMT -5
Guys? That's why I said "may occur". I am not personally convinced either way, my point being is that we already know that the doomsday environment is present now on other planets...if we can go to one of them and "fix" their environments or live in their environments, then surely we could just stay here and do the same thing. It would be easier and less expensive it seems to me.
I think NASA is just a big money pit that uses propaganda and emotions to continue their gravy train of tax funded science projects. Money would be more wisely spent exploring our oceans.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 16:15:57 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 24, 2007 16:15:57 GMT -5
As there is at the very least enough compelling circumstantial evidence that Mars has some form of life- almost certainly microbial but that still qualifies as 'life'- I don't think that the miniscule budgetary dollars allocated to NASA are a waste at all.
Notice the push over the last few years to develop hydrogen fuel cell-powered qutos? Know where that came from? Yup...NASA during the Gemini Program in the 1960s. Now granted, the progress in refining the fuel cells has been comparatively lacking since then but, had NASA built upon the success of Apollo and channelled their energies into a permanent moon base and then on to Mars by the 1980s (such a program was well into the planning stages when Nixon and Congress began to gut funding in the early-mid 1970s), who knows what technological refinements of existing equipment or entirely new equipment whose manufacture would come as a result of NASA requirements we'd have today?
(also...Mars doesn't experience any sort of "greenhouse effect"- Venus does. Mars has a planetary climate that we humans could endure...though the lack of oxygen and water limits what we could do.)
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 17:43:13 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 17:43:13 GMT -5
womi, there has been zero proof, circumstantial or otherwise that there is any life on Mars. As you point out, the technology we have now was built upon 1960s innovation...what has NASA done for us lately? Mars barely has an atmosphere, no magnetic field (hello sunbursts and radiation poisoning) and gravity low enough to cause a problem to long term health. I say all that in the possibility that it can all be overcome, I just think it would be easier to overcome on our own planet, which has oxygen and all the other resources to sustain life. minuscule budgetary dollars? In relation to interest payments on national debt and entitlements, yes but it is a significant amount of money to spend. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_BudgetAs seen in the budget breakdown listed above, the total projected amount that NASA will have spent amounts to $419.420 billion dollars -- an average of $8.559 billion per year, if spread out over its' past forty-nine year history (1958-2007). In 1996 dollars, the figure would be adjusted to $621.412 billion, or an average of $12.681 billion dollars per year spread over 49 years.Besides, you have espoused a view, rightly so, in that the U.S. Government should adhere to the U.S. Constitution and it doesn't have the power or authority to do certain things. NASA and space exploration is nowhere alluded to in the Constitution.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 17:46:50 GMT -5
Post by killer on Jan 24, 2007 17:46:50 GMT -5
Hey!!! What are those circles out in the cornfields??
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 17:57:40 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 17:57:40 GMT -5
Hey!!! What are those circles out in the cornfields?? The work of British nerds.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 18:07:46 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 18:07:46 GMT -5
Speaking of Mars and "evidence" of PAST life....could somebody explain to me how it has been determined that this manna from the star trek enterprise, a meteroite, came from Mars? I have read a lot of articles that state this. Granted the rock has the same chemical properties as those analysed on Mars...but how did it get here? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1190948.stmThat's always bugged me.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 18:23:15 GMT -5
Post by brandon on Jan 24, 2007 18:23:15 GMT -5
Granted the rock has the same chemical properties as those analysed on Mars...but how did it get here? A meteorite could have knocked pieces of Mars into space then made its way to Earth. I'm not convinced that the life formed on Mars, though. I agree with the guy that said it's highly possible that the bacteria was Earth contamination after it arrived here.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 18:25:03 GMT -5
Post by jonathant on Jan 24, 2007 18:25:03 GMT -5
While I know the founders of our country had foresight, I HIGHLY doubt they though much about flying, much less about space travel.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 20:43:20 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 20:43:20 GMT -5
While I know the founders of our country had foresight, I HIGHLY doubt they though much about flying, much less about space travel. That doesn't stop people from applying a 17th century document to a 21st century world for other reasons. The basic premise that should restrict the U.S. government from using tax dollars on NASA is the same that should have restricted them from creating entitlement programs.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 24, 2007 21:42:06 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 21:42:06 GMT -5
www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/health/how_and_why/082696.htmAccording to Stanford chemist Richard Zare, one of the co-authors of the Science paper reporting that the meteorite contained organic molecules that could be signs of life, there are several pieces of evidence indicating it came from Mars.
First, the rock's chemical composition is vastly different from any rocks found on Earth. Second, gas (noble gases -- those that do not react chemically with other substances -- and nitrogen) trapped in bubbles in the meteorite matches samples of the Martian atmosphere measured by lander probes during the 1976 Viking mission. The meteorites could not have come from the moon because they were molten long after the moon had solidified. Finally, ratios of chemically distinct forms of oxygen (isotopes) used to ``fingerprint'' meteorites resemble the other meteorites that are thought to come from Mars and are very different from meteorites that come from comets.1.First, the rock's chemical composition is vastly different from any rocks found on Earth. So do we assume all rocks different from those on earth come from mars? This isn't a logical conclusion.2.gas (noble gases -- those that do not react chemically with other substances -- and nitrogen) trapped in bubbles in the meteorite matches samples of the Martian atmosphere measured by lander probes during the 1976 Viking mission. ok- this is evidence and hope it would be confirmed by later probes that actually landed on the surface.3.The meteorites could not have come from the moon because they were molten long after the moon had solidified. hmm, why even bring this up, unless there's a posibility that the evidence cited in number 2 could be valid for the moon?4.ratios of chemically distinct forms of oxygen (isotopes) used to ``fingerprint'' meteorites resemble the other meteorites that are thought to come from Mars and are very different from meteorites that come from comets. Wow, that's classic...I guess resemblance is considered scientific. If the other meteorites are proven not to have come from mars, then the house of cards would fall down on this point.I still think it's all propaganda hype by NASA in order to elicit continued funding.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 25, 2007 12:31:58 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 25, 2007 12:31:58 GMT -5
The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to regulate television, radio or the internet- also technologies unheard of in 1787, yet there is a rational basis for such government regulation.
If you want to open that particular can of worms- that the Constitution was never meant to deal with things which are not expressly and explicitly referred to therein- then you're going to get things like abortion on demand, legalized gay marriage and any number of other issues that might not be in the best interest of the citizens of the US.
NASA began life as NACA, which was formed by the government back in I want to say the 1920s to advance the cause of aircraft safety and efficiency. In that respect, it was much like the CDC in that it had a madate to to research that would advance the 'public good'. The only place with which I might find fault with NASA/NACA is that it had no real private-sector competitors as the CDC does.
NASA has, with an infintesimal yearly budget, provided incredible advances for not just the American people but indeed everyone. In conjunction with the military, NASA research has led to the development of satellites, including weather and communications (and, yes, spy) birds, refinements and improvements in jet and rocket technology (either by NASA itself or, more likely, by one of its contractors- but the contract came from NASA [government]) and NASA is also responsible for advancements in medicine, biology and the like. I consider it money VERY well spent.
As to " what has NASA done for me lately", it's a valid question. Most of its landmark innovations took place decades ago precisely because it lost so much of his direction and funding as a result of very short-sighted government decisions in the 1970s. But even with that being obviously the case, the inescapable fact remains: that NASA laid the groundwork that allowed much of what we take for granted to occur in the first place, like the aforementioned hydrogen fuel cells. If anything, it was the private sector that dropped the ball on refining the technology after NASA and its contractors started the process.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 25, 2007 12:54:19 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 25, 2007 12:54:19 GMT -5
I thought the Mars discussion merited its own response.
The meteorite that is believed to have come from Mars (probably via a meteorite impact with that planet at sometime in the distant past) has characteristics that are consistent with rocks that our Mars explorer craft have analyzed while on Mars and functioning.
Frankly, it really isn't too surprising that such a determination was made because, of the four inner planets, circumstances dictate only Mars and Earth would be prime candidates for such a rock.
Mercury is far too close to the Sun for it to be likely that any material from an impact, unless so large as to fracture the entire planet, for the material to escape the sun's gravitational pull.
I believe that Venus is chemically "wrong" to have provided such material. It is such an inhospitable place that landers operate for only a very short period of time before being 'killed' by the conditions there.
As for life on Mars, much of the evidence is indeed circumstantial. We do know that mars has a milder climate than any other planet save our own and Mars does have water in the form of persistent ice caps at its poles. The presence of liquid water is considered by scientists to be crucial to the presence of life, at least in forms that we can conceive of. Mars might well have once had running water during an epoch in which the sun was hotter than it is now (there's your cause of global warming folks) because there are 'valleys' that are consistent with those cut into rock by flowing water here on earth (though to be fair they could also have resulted from flowing lava- we just don't know yet). The circumstantial evidence, while far from conclusive, is nonetheless tantalizing.
As to the four objections:
Not necessarily, but one does need to exclude other possibilities before making a conclusion. To eliminate earth as a possible source is a step along that path.
Agreed. Remote investigation at such a distance frequently raises more questions than it answers (witness the flybys of Titan).
Again, you're eliminating one possible source from many and giving a sound scientific reason for such a conclusion. This is good science.
Yet again, one has to exclude various possibilities, by scientific means, in order to reduce the number of probably origins. If you are able to 'prove' chemically that such a meteorite could not have come from the moon or from comets, you've eliminated two prime suppliers of such material in the solar system and you've not ruled out Mars (or, to be fair, asteroids which have wildly divergent chamical makeups). Since no one has travelled to Mars with the meteorite and fit the piece of rock to a native rock formation like assembling an intergalactic jigsaw puzzle, we can't know for certain....but science can, through its processes, make a very educated guess, subject to new discoveries down the road.
As I said elsewhere, for Man to think that he is the only life that exists in this incomprehensibly large universe is the height of arrogance. Man might- or might not- be unique, but he isn't alone.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 25, 2007 14:47:14 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:47:14 GMT -5
The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to regulate television, radio or the internet- also technologies unheard of in 1787, yet there is a rational basis for such government regulation. If you want to open that particular can of worms- that the Constitution was never meant to deal with things which are not expressly and explicitly referred to therein- then you're going to get things like abortion on demand, legalized gay marriage and any number of other issues that might not be in the best interest of the citizens of the US. NASA began life as NACA, which was formed by the government back in I want to say the 1920s to advance the cause of aircraft safety and efficiency. In that respect, it was much like the CDC in that it had a madate to to research that would advance the 'public good'. The only place with which I might find fault with NASA/NACA is that it had no real private-sector competitors as the CDC does. NASA has, with an infintesimal yearly budget, provided incredible advances for not just the American people but indeed everyone. In conjunction with the military, NASA research has led to the development of satellites, including weather and communications (and, yes, spy) birds, refinements and improvements in jet and rocket technology (either by NASA itself or, more likely, by one of its contractors- but the contract came from NASA [government]) and NASA is also responsible for advancements in medicine, biology and the like. I consider it money VERY well spent. As to " what has NASA done for me lately", it's a valid question. Most of its landmark innovations took place decades ago precisely because it lost so much of his direction and funding as a result of very short-sighted government decisions in the 1970s. But even with that being obviously the case, the inescapable fact remains: that NASA laid the groundwork that allowed much of what we take for granted to occur in the first place, like the aforementioned hydrogen fuel cells. If anything, it was the private sector that dropped the ball on refining the technology after NASA and its contractors started the process. NASA can be a regulating body under the constituition but they have gone beyond that.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 25, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
regulate what please?
NASA has clearly been used by the military in defense of this nation, THAT ALONE makes it constitutional.
and in the future NASA may well do something to avert being hit by a meteor, a very REAL threat to this planet......THAT ALONE would make it constitutional in the effort to preserve liberty.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 25, 2007 15:27:50 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 15:27:50 GMT -5
I am technically wrong. The FAA regulates space travel, not NASA. The FAA however has and will continue to use NASA resources in the process of regulating due to their monopoly of that area.
NASA would only be constitutional if it were a part of the military. It currently is not and is used as a tool. There is no compelling reason why spy satellites are put into orbit via the space shuttle over a rocket. The only reason is to give NASA a constructive purpose to show for itself.
|
|
|
NASA
Jan 26, 2007 16:18:55 GMT -5
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 26, 2007 16:18:55 GMT -5
For a very significant time during the 1950s and 1960s, the US military had their own parallel program to what NASA was doing, up to and including development of their own manned space vehicles (called "Blue Gemini") and their own strictly military space station (called the MOL or "Manned Orbiting Laboratory").
Not only that but, in its earliest days, NASA had to rely heavily on the military for resources, especially in terms of the rockets they used. It wasn't until the Saturn I in 1966 that NASA had its own launcher developed in house. All of the Mercury and Gemini launches used either stock or slightly modified ICBMs (such as the Atlas). NASA uses military recon and tracking stations and ships for recovery even until now. NASA also tapped the military for its brainpower, though to a much smaller degree.
President Kennedy raised the first objections to the military sapce program, believing that the militarization of space wasn't in the best interests of either the US or the world. Kennedy outlined a program wherein the military was not allowed to put offensive weapons in space though, clearly, he had no problem with spy satellites. Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued this policy (as did Carter....though in "Jimmah's" case, he would oppose any militarization on earth too, hence his purposeful destruction of the military while President).
Kennedy probably also objected to the duplication of effort and resources that the parallel programs required. I think Johnson was probably an ideological soulmate of Kennedy in this regard; I think Nixon just wanted to spend the money elsewhere. Had the military program continued, it is very unlikely that we would have reached the moon during the '60s.
|
|