Replies

Here is a site with a long list of technological advances directly attributable to the manned space program. Inquiring minds need to use a search engine! ;oP

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Also, your data on asteroid composition is a bit off. A very large percentage of asteroids are of metallic composition. Some are in orbit of earth itself, though only for a few decades or centuries. Here is a site that desciribes the basics of asteroid classification/composition.

http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/asteroids.html

Also, it would be profitiable to do a search on NASA's homepage on new propulsion techniqes, or even here. Especially nuclear powered engines. You may be suprised!

This page has many links to articles about useful zero-g industries. In addition, one should consider the ease with which one can build vehicles when they don't have to deal with the rigors of atmosphere. Especially freighters and other large cargo-carrying craft.

http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/space/manuf.html

If you've checked the things that have been put up by me and other freepers, you'll begin to see that space isn't necessarily a money losing proposition at all. NEVER assume technology will be static--that is a common tactic of the envirals who worry about us running out of crude oil in 2150. It's like 18th century people worrying about what they'll do in 2000 when the whale oil runs out! he he

As for taxpayer dollars, yeah, paying taxes suck. Taxes should be as low as physically possible. Yet the government does have jobs it is constitionally required by law to do. National defense and infrastructure development are often cited by libertarians as some the few things they approve of, and the manned space program, with all of its potential benefit, definitely fits the bill. Compare NASA (15 billion/yr) with DOD (~350 billion/yr). It is a pittance, less than Gray Out's budget deficit.

I hope and pray that these things might change your mind just a little. :O)

FReepin cheers,

C13

I looked at the web site, and basically they're claiming credit for almost everything. My question was a lot harder. What was directly attributable to manned space flight that would not have otherwise been developed. I have yet to hear anything that I believed. Some news show last night was claiming bullet proof vests were an outgrowth of space suit technology. WRONG! Aramid fibers were first developed for tire use and bullet proof vests were developed almost immediately after this. There were a bunch of other lies too. There are probably some that are directly attributable to manned space flight, but pinning down the ones that would have not been otherwise developed is pretty tricky keeping in mind that every dollar spent on space flight was a dollar not spent by some other industry (like the tire industry). As far as the search engine goes - it was your assertion not mine. You are the one who needs to support it.

It doesn't matter what asteroids are made of (and nothing on the astronomy site led me to believe that rock isn't the predominant component) the energy required to get them and bring them back is orders of magnitude too high for any practical use of the materials. Mars in particular is a big ball of dust and rock with no breathable air. It currently costs about $400,000,000 to send a one way robot probe. Just a robotic sample return would cost nearly 5 times as much. A hell of a lot of money to pay for a few kg of rock. Particularly when you consider that those dollars were extracted from people wwho worked hard for them, and would have much rather determined how to spend them themselves.

The Cassini mission to Saturn is another example of the energy requirements. The probe literally could not have carried enough fuel to climb up out of the sun's gravitational well if it weren't for the gravitational slingshot manuvers that NASA has done so well with.

People have been talking about exotic propulsion techniques since I was a kid - nuclear, etc. They remain just as far away now as they were then and that was a LONG time ago.

You say space is "not a losing proposition." Here we somewhat disagree. For the aerospace industries and NASA it is a clear winner. For the taxpayers who are forced to support this stuff it is a losing proposition that transfers vast quantities or wealth from those who earned it to those who lobbied for it.

There are few sustaneable reasons for going into space. Comsats and weather sats are two good reasons, but they don't require manned space flight. The entire industry is distorted by billions of plundered dollars being spent for things that are only wanted by a few how have used the police power of the state to confiscate the wealth of others to support their dreams.

Saying that it's only 15 billion dollars is somewhat disingenuous. I don't even have one billion dollars. Hell, I'd be happy with half a billion. This represents a very large sum in terms of what has been looted from the people who worked for it. I could buy a damn fine telescope and all the trimmings (at least in the 36" range) with what I've forceably contributed to NASA over the years. Speaking of telescopes, even the hubble is becoming obsolete. Ground based adaptive optics are outstripping Hubble resolution at 1/500 of the cost. The Keck telescopes were privately funded!

You haven't changed my mind, but I appreciate your enthusiasm even if it appears misplaced to me.