While watching the shuttle launch today, I saw this bit. Notice its on a Windows computer… You can see the task bar and the start menu at the bottom and title and menu bar at top (Image screen printed)
…I don’t get it.
What, you expect nasa to be running linux or something?
The problem with NASA is that they’ve sometimes had miscommunication and not converted units between the British Imperial and metric systems.
And that they’re wasting money on the shuttle and the International Space Station in the first place, instead of sending out more robots to probe the solar system’s dusty crevices.
I think the shuttles and the space station are a ludicrous waste of money.
Really? See, i agree with you, and i believe what RPT said, also. But you’re a biochemist or a doctor, i forget which, but both of them are frequently quoted as two fields that supposedly benefit greatly from being able to do science in space. So are those benefits not worth the price? Or are they non-existent in the first place? Your opinion is pretty interesting seeing as you have an inside view so to speak.
You can still do biology work in space on probes. Or just send up satellites with like boxes and retrive them after a while. Plus there was that retrival probe they just got back a bit ago, send biology experients like that to other planets.
I like seeing science advance and cool stuff happen. The problem is that the shuttle system is extremely outdated and the dangers associated with the aging of the fleet render travel under the current conditions nearly impossible. Its a cost and benefits situation and in my opinion, the shuttle launches are too rare and too expensive to validate the small steps forward. I think NASA itself has contributed greatly to science so I’m not badgering the agency. I think that the space program itself needs to be revamped so that it serves a purpose and it serves it efficiently.
From a biologist’s point of view, there is very little you could do in terms of basic research in the time frame of a shuttle launch and return and under the conditions people work in. Furthermore, I have no clue what the latest space station is for or what it contributes. Nevertheless, the chief of NASA’s agency said that if it had been up to him , that station wouldn’t exist in the first place. Since the public is what pays for these things, it is NASA’s obligation to at least be transparent enough to let that be known. The purpose of research funding is to improve people’s lives, not fund some esoteric idea some crack pot had. If someone got money to find out something neat in space, I’d like to know what other less “neat” but more significant projects didn’t get that funding.
It doesn’t have a scientific purpose. They wanted to prove it was possible for the international community to cooperate and build it, and they needed something to replace grand old MIR. It’s more a statue in space than a space station and about as useful to science.
You could say the same about the shuttles, weren’t they necessary to the maintenance of sattelites, and specifically the Hubble Telescope. They’re well due to be replaced, yes, but until there’s something to actually replace them, they’re necessary and vital.
On a seperate but related note: Go, go New Horizons!
one word: terraformation.
I dont like how they propose go about it though. I mean we would already need SOME atmosphere to start. it doesnt matter what, TOO much. it just for density, and containment purposes. Controlled lava flows would seem like a good way to get some co2 going. but in a vacuum it would take alot to mot make it too much or too little. Humanity as a whole needs to start thinking of ways to expand it’s frontiers before we collapse upon ourselves. That was probably the point of the station too, but now IT seems pretty much useless.
The station has nothing to do with terraforming (I say this because it seems a rather poor lab, lacking gravity and a pre-existing atmosphere, or a place to test any land-based gear). In any case, rather than solve potential problems of overpopulation by finding other places to overpopulate, we should simply not reproduce like rabbits in the first place. The benefits of space exploration should be technological and scientific, not political.
Whoo, yeah!
I figured that launching people into space was just an earlier form of the e-penis comparisons of today as well as some weird feelgood thing like a kid finally jumping such-and-such fence on a bike. I think that with everything else we as people need to do these days, it’s a huge waste of money.
I’m all for more ocean exploration. Now THAT’S cool. 
HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHA. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA. HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
lol ultra horny am i.:moogle:
On a more serious light. Im sure that in places where the average life expectancy is about25 years they would love to stop populating…meaning the downfall of thier heritage, and culture. Sometimes they make more than they need. Just like turtles,frogs,or rabbits. except, once they are in the clear they have guns to defend themselves, and outside help. The only true way to stop overpopulation is to…in reality…not give them defense. Its true. But in humanity, seeing a part of the world become a baren wastland would cause some more responsible decision making on the parts of the more foolish leaders…
I feel evil now that im speaking my mind. There would be other ways to work around these kinds of if conglonmerations STOPPED destroying land, but then again. I suppose being indirectly responsible for an almost complete genocide is fine as long as you make a buck.
( im not talking about countries that are pretty much making it law to have only 2 kids. They are taking care of their problems. They have a high life expectancy, and still overpopulate unlike African rainforest tribes that now have to learn to live off a dessert and get to live for 25 years. Once the land is back to normal, then the birth laws would be effective ONLY then.)
Simmer, spare us your stupidity. We don’t need another Setz. We don’t care about your horniness. Your argument for population control also doesn’t work.
Which dessert are these “African rainforest tribes” living off of? Chocolate mousse? I mean, they only get to pick one, so it had better be good.
The solutions to overpopulation have to be social, economic, and political. The most terrifying part of the problem is that somehow you have to make everybody understand it enough to participate in the solution. Otherwise you only have some form of forced sterilization left, and that’s never going to fly.
On the social front, you have to contend with both religious ideas (Go forth/Be fruitful and multiply) and a secular notion of natural rights. Population control has to also be economically feasible, so those high-mortality populations Simmer mentioned can ensure their continued existence by some way other than pumping out children faster than disease, starvation, or conflict can claim them. And on the political front, at one point the effort will have to be worldwide. So good luck on that one. All those babies not being born are lost potential soldiers, after all.
You see, my natural tendency would be to support forced sterilization of any people who parented more than two children, or require abortions when feasible. However, I understand that both of these ideas are things that a good number of people find a bit distasteful. Oh, and you get called a Nazi whenever you bring up forced sterilization, so let’s get that out of the way right now.
Anyway, back to the thread’s original topic. One of the criticisms NASA’s received for…well, for a good long time now - is that we shouldn’t be pumping money into space when we have a lot of problems to deal with on the Earth. This is a short-sighted point of view. It presumes two things - first, that the benefits of exploration are small, and second, that the money would be better used terestrially. The fruits of our endeavors in space (doing things impossible from the ground) have been revelations in science that produce new technology here on Earth as well as certain philosophical ideas - our place in the universe and all that. And the idea that the money would be better spent on some other program - well, who do you trust to spend it well? New information gained from the space program is permanent, establishing a new threshhold of knowledge that barring catastrophe we’ll never fall below. The same money pumped into a military cause, or tax relief, or humanitarian programs, will have little lasting effect.
One could also say that if we don’t get good at shipping people off of this rock, we’ll <i>all</i> be here when things to tits up and that’ll be the end of the human race.
I agree completely. I think it’s bullshit that people feel the need to get into space when they don’t even completely understand the world they live on. There’s countless things to be discovered in the world, especially in the oceans. Think about how timeless it is down there. I’d imagine we could learn a lot from the Earth’s history and past by ocean exploration.
As for overpopulation, the only solution to that is to take notice of it yourself and make sure you don’t contribute by having six kids. There’s no way you are going to get the world to co-operate with something like limiting your number of offspring or quite possibly eliminating your right to have them. As previously mentioned, it would be a dictatorship if that happened. If you think the world is overpopulated, don’t have kids. Adopt instead. There’s plenty of kids that need homes. Why make more when you can help some instead?
But yeah, space exploration… boring.
*edit:unless it’s in science fiction movies like aliens. Then it’s awesome.