What good would being scared do? If those sumbitches were coming at us, there's shit all we could do. Shit all.
Not necessarily. There could be things we can do. But part of finding the answer is...space exploration! (Cue Dramatic Hamster)
Why stupid? The solar system is so large people have a hard time understanding just how massive it is. It has nothing to do with being stupid. Smart people are in the same boat most of the time. And a hole in a gaseous atmosphere is not scary. Especially since there was no hole because gas just replaced it. You can show pictures of Jupiter with the black dots on it and tell people that the dot is bigger then the Earth but it still doesn't register right on the brain. No one has seen Jupiter with their own eyes. It's difficult to comprehend just how massive this planet is in relation to Earth. However if they can go outside look at the moon and see a big ass crater, so big that they don't need binoculars or a telescope that will leave a impression. People will understand that.
That's right. Had those rocks hit us we might not be here today. We certainly would not be on the internet. But being scared can be a good thing. It's a motivator. Rip a chunk out of the moon and people will act.
I always figured if I can comprehend something, it can't be that difficult for others to do as well. I may be wrong, but in the report I saw on it, didn't it say that there were holes in the atmospheric clouds for days? Or did I misunderstand that?
It's difficult. Space is so large. Jupiter is billions of miles from us. The suns light takes 8 minutes to get to Earth. When you start getting big numbers like that people have a hard time dealing with it. There were no holes. You can't have a hole in the atmosphere because that would mean something had to hold the atmosphere out for the hole to exist. Perhaps the report was wrong (wouldn't be a first) or you mis-read it. Perhaps they meant to say the asteroids punched a hole into the atmosphere. Of course after the explosion was all done the rest of the atmosphere filled it back in. There were black dots where the rocks hit for days. Those weren't holes but debris of some type.
Is it smug to assume everyone can understand what you can understand? I never got that one, myself....
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we really want to see progress in speace, allow people to make a profit on it and fuck that damn UN "Common heritage" bullshit all in both ears. Do that and I won't need NASA for anything more than regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty I've often heard the argument made by those smarter than I that the current (and likely future) legal thinking in the appropriate international legal bodies is that the treaty will limit if not prevent private entities from profiting from their investments in space research.
...yeah, the human race isn't going to make it. If I had a fleck of doubt, it's gone. We've built the walls of bullshit blocking our salvation too big and quicksandy. We're fucked.
The only reason we signed that junk was because of the nukes. No one wanted nukes in orbit. As soon as the tech gives us the capability to get off Earth that treaty will be null and void as we (and other countries if they can get out there) will carve up what we need and want. This is another reason Obama disgusts me. And people on general towards the space program. The first people out there have a huge advantage on the rest of the planet. Anytime we attack our own space program we may lessen our future chances of being first.
I don't necessarily disagree with that BUT it still doesn't get around the fact that private innovation is being squashed by the heavy hand of governments. To paraphrase Heinlien, it's raining soup out there and no one is allowed to pick up a bucket.
it would, but as i've stated in other threads you've got to consider what decades of state interference has done to private enterprise and its worldview. shot-term profits are the order of the day now - find a new thing, squeeze what you can out of it before gub'mint finds some new tax or regulation with which to reduce your returns. you have some trailblazers - virgin galactic and bigelow for example - who'll lead the way, but if they fail then business might not try again for a long while, and that would be damaging to the long-term future of the US and the west. space minings going to be big business soon, if the chinese manage to get there first... well, you want 'blue sun' stamped on all your tech goods?
i don't agree with ron pauls stance on this one - for pragmatic rather than philosophical reasons - but i can understand why folk would tolerate ron paul destroying NASA but not obama hurting it. the former would be part of a potential betterment of the US as a whole, the latter is just shifting pork for votes with no real overall improvement for the US.
Pure POV - there's a lot of folks that think education is the highest priority we should have, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. I just think it's handled better at the state level. I don't think a space program is capable of being handled at the state level. And I don't think have a federal space program is interferring with having a private one. We've seen otherwise. Ultimately though, what it comes down to is space isn't profitable for companies - yet. When it does become profitable there will be a huge influx of capital into getting us out there. But for that we need the R&D to making space flight less expensive, and that's exactly the type of thing that I think the federal government should be involved in. It's crucial for the species. What was the old quote? We spent more on the making movies about asteroid impacts that kill humanity than we have in funding the people who are trying to stop an asteroid impact that would kill humanity?
Until a propulsion or transport system that makes access to low Earth orbit cheap is developed, it's going to be up to the government to fund it. We're on the verge of seeing private industry produce some supply transports to the ISS and sea launched satellite boosters, but we're not quite there yet.
On what rational do we assume private industry is incapable of the R&D to develop such a propulsion system?
I think MD is not saying that private industry is incapable per se. It's more that private industry would demand a return on investment that's just not feasible, given the tremendous current cost of developing a propulsion system. Only government can absorb the sort of R&D costs that could well go in the trillions without a prospect for immediate commercialization.
^^ I guess it just goes back to how you view government. goverment absorbs huges costs because government uses a sledgehammer to crack an edge. It's ham-handed and unweildy. I don't believe that private investors would have to pay such a huge cost (huge, but not on the scale government would spend) to accomplish the same task and accomplish it, ultimately better. Now, I'll admit it would take a visionary,someone with both the resources, and the vision for the endgame. such men are rare. but it's what we need. Government is better than going nowhere but it is an exceedingly poor second place, IMO.
There is more to it than that. Though probably all of us here who are Ron Paul supporters are also enthusiastic fans of space technology, and thus disagree with this particular element of his proposal (who ever found a candidate with whom they agreed on everything?), we know that his chances of getting NASA totally eliminated are fairly small. But a "delay it for 5 years in favor of education" platform acutally has a very good chance of being accepted. The threat that potentially could cause the worst damage is still not necessarily the most dangerous threat.
Of all the many unusual propositions in Paul's platform, I would think that dismantling NASA would have a comparatively (!) good chance of being realized, and finding support.
I hope that everyone's who's upset with this, will use the feedback form on Obama's site to inform him how you feel about the matter. Hillary has a stronger position on the space program, and given that the two of them are neck and neck in many polls, telling Obama that you're switching your vote to Hillary in the primaries will probably get his attention (of course whether or not you do vote for Hillary is another matter entirely ).
