China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:39 am UTC


User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:51 am UTC

Well, yay for her. However, when it comes to China I.... don't like their government and therefore need to urge the US to get back into a new space race of dominance.

The new space plane the military just tested seems to be a somewhat adequate response.

But anyways, yes, congradulations to her.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3486
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Magnanimous » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:00 am UTC

Fuck yeah. It's great to have countries really dedicated to space exploration, though I'm curious to see how private space ventures will turn out.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:03 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Well, yay for her. However, when it comes to China I.... don't like their government and therefore need to urge the US to get back into a new space race of dominance.

The new space plane the military just tested seems to be a somewhat adequate response.

But anyways, yes, congradulations to her.

If you mean investment on stuff that's produced useful results like GPS, then yes.

If you mean wasteful spending on what basically amounts to a display of who has the bigger space penis between governments, then Hell no.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6343
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:12 am UTC

Arariel wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:Well, yay for her. However, when it comes to China I.... don't like their government and therefore need to urge the US to get back into a new space race of dominance.

The new space plane the military just tested seems to be a somewhat adequate response.

But anyways, yes, congradulations to her.

If you mean investment on stuff that's produced useful results like GPS, then yes.

If you mean wasteful spending on what basically amounts to a display of who has the bigger space penis between governments, then Hell no.

Don't knock government spending to prove who has the biggest e-penis. Why do you think Congress bothered to fund our space programs? It sure as hell wasn't to develop our knowledge and expand the frontiers of mankind. At this point, the only money for R&D that republicans will vote for is military spending.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby johnny_7713 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:05 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Arariel wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:Well, yay for her. However, when it comes to China I.... don't like their government and therefore need to urge the US to get back into a new space race of dominance.

The new space plane the military just tested seems to be a somewhat adequate response.

But anyways, yes, congradulations to her.

If you mean investment on stuff that's produced useful results like GPS, then yes.

If you mean wasteful spending on what basically amounts to a display of who has the bigger space penis between governments, then Hell no.

Don't knock government spending to prove who has the biggest e-penis. Why do you think Congress bothered to fund our space programs? It sure as hell wasn't to develop our knowledge and expand the frontiers of mankind. At this point, the only money for R&D that republicans will vote for is military spending.


And in fact, although the military space budget (for stuff like spy satellites and the new space plane) is classified, it is apparently thought to be larger than the NASA budget. Though I'm not sure if that means larger than the NASA space budget or larger than the entire NASA budget.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:15 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:MILITARIZE SPACE! MURIKA FUCK YEAH

Really? And people say China is a threat to world peace?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:50 am UTC

Can we stop celebrating the first woman to do this or that? It is becoming tiring and is a meaningless way for the human race to pat itself on the back for not being QUITE as male-centric as it used to be.

Ladies, what the fuck are any of you complaining about? China sent one of you to SPACE, clearly shit's all good.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:52 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Can we stop celebrating the first woman to do this or that? It is becoming tiring and is a meaningless way for the human race to pat itself on the back for not being QUITE as male-centric as it used to be.

Ladies, what the fuck are any of you complaining about? China sent one of you to SPACE, clearly shit's all good.

So we shouldn't celebrate progresses because the end goal is not yet reached?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:57 am UTC

I'm saying we should stop treating "first woman to do [x]" as if it's some sort of glorious milestone that means anything has actually been achieved.

"We put a woman in space, let's pat ourselves on the back!" It's just a constant refrain of "Men do everything first, then later we let a woman do it so we can feel proud of ourselves."
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:05 am UTC

You can make the better an enemy of the good. Yes, 'first woman in space' is only a milestone in a culture that prefers men for dangerous-but-glorious activities. Not just for astronauts, also for the military pilots from which they were recruited.

But whether you like it or not, most cultures are like that, and within that context it's still a real milestone. For women, and for the program. A bit more effort would not have overturned the whole underlying cultural base.

Suppose you would prefer a situation where women would have been equally considered as first human do something like that. Do you think that celebrating a first Chinese woman in space hurts on a path towards that? The message of the celebration has multiple sides. It carries the message that women are only considered once the project is somewhat safe and routine. But it also carries the message that astronaut (and air force pilot) are acceptable and laudable jobs for women to aspire to.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Роберт » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

Woo, space!

Now the U.S. needs to get its crap together and get a woman to mars.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:31 am UTC

Роберт wrote:Woo, space!

Now the U.S. needs to get its crap together and get a woman to mars.

So basically a pointless, wasteful display of who has the bigger space penis, then, right?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:46 am UTC

Arariel wrote:So basically a pointless, wasteful display of who has the bigger space penis, then, right?

Only if you consider things such as improved computer technology, materials science, foods science, all the advances we've gotten out of satellites (GPS, weather forecasting, communication...), improved batteries, medical science, and various safety technologies to be big space penises. I consider them to be useful results of the science investments needed for space exploration myself.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:51 am UTC

GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.

Where do you think the tech for GPS came from? Lots and lots of research: rocket research for NASA, satellite research for NASA, power research, communication research, and so on. Research research research! What do you think sending people to Mars entails? Research! Sending somebody to Mars isn't just pissing $10 billion into the research bucket; we get to use that research later, for completely unrelated things!

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:01 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.

Where do you think the tech for GPS came from? Lots and lots of research: rocket research for NASA, satellite research for NASA, power research, communication research, and so on. Research research research! What do you think sending people to Mars entails? Research! Sending somebody to Mars isn't just pissing $10 billion into the research bucket; we get to use that research later, for completely unrelated things!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#History

GPS began as a very utilitarian tool funded by the Navy, not just so we could show off how awesome we were.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:05 am UTC

Arariel wrote:GPS began as a very utilitarian tool funded by the Navy, not just so we could show off how awesome we were.

... You missed the point completely didn't you? Where did the people that built GPS get the technology they used for it? If you go back enough steps, you'll see it came from NASA. Without NASA, the Navy wouldn't have had the fundamental technology it needed to start its initial GPS work.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:15 am UTC

Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.


'Cause y'know computer technologies that were developed for the Apollo capsules (because at the time a single computer that could fit in one room was all but unimaginable) have absolutely no applications here on Earth....

Oh, wait.. the technologies that came out of those early compact computers are in fucking -EVERYTHING- these days, including that thing you're using to argue with us on this interblag thing.

---

Sending people to Mars will require enormous advances in efficient power consumption, advances in efficiency that can improve our levels of resource consumption here on Earth.

Sending people to Mars will require improvements in filtration and atmosphere processing, improvements that can be used to reduce emissions from gas and coal-fired powerplants, as well as automobiles and factories.

Water filtration and recycling will require advances, advances that can be used to mitigate increased consumption of water in many parts of the world (including the southwest U.S.).

A stable Mars colony will require advances in compact agriculture. Not that every earth-side farm will become space-capsule hydroponics facilities, but that advances in efficient use of water, efficient soil nutrients and efficiently replacing those nutrients in the soil will have significant impacts on food production here.

All the research that goes in to creating a livable, sustainable space capsule can be applied to problems here on Earth if you just use some imagination.
Last edited by Dauric on Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:19 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS began as a very utilitarian tool funded by the Navy, not just so we could show off how awesome we were.

... You missed the point completely didn't you? Where did the people that built GPS get the technology they used for it? If you go back enough steps, you'll see it came from NASA. Without NASA, the Navy wouldn't have had the fundamental technology it needed to start its initial GPS work.


On the contrary, the first navigational system (with five satellites, and a precursor to GPS) was developed by a university for the Navy, back when NASA was only two years old. So no, not much involvement by them. GPS is and has always been developed by the military.

Besides, I'm not arguing against all space funding. Space funding is great, but the entire point of conducting missions should never be "Let's do X so we can show we can and stick it in the face of those commies!" And landing people on Mars or redoing the Moon landings (like the Constellation program that was proposed) just seems to be that kind of thing. I mean, we have all the resources for either already, we could technically do them. I don't see how redoing something we've already done (Moon landings) will develop new technologies, or doing something we've done on a larger scale (landing on Mars) would do so either. We've already landed robots on Mars; why do we need to make humans a priority?

Dauric wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.


'Cause y'know computer technologies that were developed for the Apollo capsules have absolutely no applications here on Earth....

Oh, wait.. the technologies that came out of those early integrated circuits are in fucking -EVERYTHING- these days, including that thing you're using to argue with us on this interblag thing.

---

Sending people to Mars will require enormous advances in efficient power consumption, advances in efficiency that can improve our levels of resource consumption here on Earth.

Sending people to Mars will require improvements in filtration and atmosphere processing, improvements that can be used to reduce emissions from gas and coal-fired powerplants, as well as automobiles and factories.

Water filtration and recycling will require advances, advances that can be used to mitigate increased consumption of water in many parts of the world (including the southwest U.S.).

A stable Mars colony will require advances in compact agriculture. Not that every earth-side farm will become space-capsule hydroponics facilities, but that advances in efficient use of water, efficient soil nutrients and efficiently replacing those nutrients in the soil will have significant impacts on food production here.

All the research that goes in to creating a livable, sustainable space capsule can be applied to problems here on Earth if you just use some imagination.


Not arguing the Moon landings weren't useful the first time; the developments in technology were useful then, even if we could have, you know, developed those technologies WITHOUT having to send someone to the Moon.

But sending people back to the Moon? Or to Mars? Colonisation is a long way off; it's good to take steps toward reductions in costs for space transport now, since that will be inevitable. But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?
Last edited by Arariel on Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Tirian » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:20 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.

Where do you think the tech for GPS came from? Lots and lots of research: rocket research for NASA, satellite research for NASA, power research, communication research, and so on. Research research research! What do you think sending people to Mars entails? Research! Sending somebody to Mars isn't just pissing $10 billion into the research bucket; we get to use that research later, for completely unrelated things!


You're really going to fall for the broken window fallacy? If we'd spent that $10 billion on things that directly benefited us, we'd have $10 billion in added value to society. By pouring it into jingoistic science theater, the benefit we derive is only a small fraction of that amount (plus the entertainment and jingoism, for what that's worth). China may feel that that's a sensible use of their capital, but I'd rather my taxpayer research address the problems of today and not the problems of fifty years ago.

(And if people are keeping score, Princess Marzipan is also right. By highlighting women who are historical for doing things that women are clearly capable of doing, we're only perpetuating the lie that women living up to their capacity is unusual. We should strive to do less of it every year.)

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:37 am UTC

Arariel wrote:On the contrary, the first navigational system (with five satellites, and a precursor to GPS) was developed by a university for the Navy, back when NASA was only two years old. So no, not much involvement by them. GPS is and has always been developed by the military.

Who do you think improved all of those technologies in the meantime? Hint: NASA. You're also over-focusing on a single example. What about all of the other things I mentioned? Those don't all get invalidated if you can prove GPS to be completely unrelated to NASA.

Arariel wrote:Besides, I'm not arguing against all space funding. Space funding is great, but the entire point of conducting missions should never be "Let's do X so we can show we can and stick it in the face of those commies!"

SMBC responds better than I can:
Spoiler:
Image
Tirian wrote:You're really going to fall for the broken window fallacy? If we'd spent that $10 billion on things that directly benefited us, we'd have $10 billion in added value to society. By pouring it into jingoistic science theater, the benefit we derive is only a small fraction of that amount (plus the entertainment and jingoism, for what that's worth). China may feel that that's a sensible use of their capital, but I'd rather my taxpayer research address the problems of today and not the problems of fifty years ago.

I'm going for the "hey look, investing money into space programs has paid huge dividends for us". We've gotten more than just a good return on investment from NASA. A lot of the technology that results from that research is brought about by the specific needs and conditions of the programs though -- just tossing an equivalent amount of money at other research and saying "make a better computer system!" could very easily have not resulted in the microprocessor. You're also missing the societal interest in science that develops from it -- it's one of the most touted things about it, that it makes children think "science is fucking awesome!" and be more likely to want to work in science.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:39 am UTC

Tirian wrote:You're really going to fall for the broken window fallacy? If we'd spent that $10 billion on things that directly benefited us, we'd have $10 billion in added value to society. By pouring it into jingoistic science theater, the benefit we derive is only a small fraction of that amount (plus the entertainment and jingoism, for what that's worth).



So... The entire modern personal computer industry is a benefit that is a small fraction of the amount of money we put in to Apollo then?

Before Apollo miniaturization of computers wasn't a big goal of the people researching computer sciences. The futurists of the day were looking towards computers the size of cities solving massive governmental problems and calculating solutions to the deeper mysteries of the universe. Now we make massive computers today, indeed IBM just set a new calculation speed record with one of their mainframes, but small computers were thought to be too weak for any kind of practical use. On top of that, "Personal" computing was a strange idea, computers belonged in large universities solving massive problems, there's no reason anyone would want or even possibly need a computer taking up two bedrooms and chugging gallons of liquid nitrogen every day.

The space program created a need for a miniaturized computer. Prioritizing small size, efficient power consumption, and reducing waste heat generation changed how people looked at computers and what thy could be. It didn't just lead to smaller computers, but cheaper computers as well (vacuum tubes are terribly expensive and frighteningly fragile, where semiconductor transistors and integrated circuits are inexpensive and you can drop them on the floor without damaging them). Miniaturization led to effective technologies that were cheap enough for garage technology enthusiasts to play with these newfangled things, and ultimately generate some of the largest grossing companies in history.

Note: this isn't the "broken window" fallacy, the Broken Window fallacy assumes you're replacing the old window with another window, not replacing the old window with a better window that has improved insulation properties that provides long-term benefits to the energy consumption of the house.

Edit:
Arariel wrote:But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?


Precisely because solving those problems for a mars mission changes the way people think about the problem as the space program changed the way people thought about computers. If you try to solve water reclamation on the municipal level it's a massive scale, enormously expansive, requires tremendous replacement of infrastructure... the very difficulties of it's size can be hurdles in and of themselves.

A space capsule to Mars is a blank slate. It changes the nature of the challenges as the moon-race changed the way we looked at computers. A space capsule to Mars doesn't have to deal with replacing hundred-year old municipal sewer and water lines, it does however have to be a hell of a lot smaller, which could potentially mean it can be crammed in to existing municipal water systems. As a blank slate it forces the researchers to focus on the most efficient way to recycle water for the least power input, rather than get sidetracked on how to make it interoperable with the building codes of a hundred different counties.

In this way I would say that these advances -can't- actually happen without actually sending people to Mars because these improvements happen because of the unique and focused challenges to sending people to Mars change the way research is done on these problems.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:04 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:On the contrary, the first navigational system (with five satellites, and a precursor to GPS) was developed by a university for the Navy, back when NASA was only two years old. So no, not much involvement by them. GPS is and has always been developed by the military.

Who do you think improved all of those technologies in the meantime? Hint: NASA. You're also over-focusing on a single example. What about all of the other things I mentioned? Those don't all get invalidated if you can prove GPS to be completely unrelated to NASA.


Sure, NASA toootally made huge, important, and vital contributions in two years. Your other examples? Prove that proving the size of our nation's collective manhood was necessary for them.

Arariel wrote:Besides, I'm not arguing against all space funding. Space funding is great, but the entire point of conducting missions should never be "Let's do X so we can show we can and stick it in the face of those commies!"

SMBC responds better than I can:
Spoiler:
Image



Whatever you say about politicians, that's not how they work. We landed the Mars rover (relatively unimpressive), rejected Constellation (more impressive), and NASA works on the weather (not impressive), right? Politicians are sure to approve projects that have a utilitarian purpose in any event, so it's not necessary as a competition to beat the commies. Research? Launch a probe. Humans are expensive.

Dauric wrote:
Tirian wrote:You're really going to fall for the broken window fallacy? If we'd spent that $10 billion on things that directly benefited us, we'd have $10 billion in added value to society. By pouring it into jingoistic science theater, the benefit we derive is only a small fraction of that amount (plus the entertainment and jingoism, for what that's worth).



So... The entire modern personal computer industry is a benefit that is a small fraction of the amount of money we put in to Apollo then?

Before Apollo miniaturization of computers wasn't a big goal of the people researching computer sciences. The futurists of the day were looking towards computers the size of cities solving massive governmental problems and calculating solutions to the deeper mysteries of the universe. Now we make massive computers today, indeed IBM just set a new calculation speed record with one of their mainframes, but small computers were thought to be too weak for any kind of practical use. On top of that, "Personal" computing was a strange idea, computers belonged in large universities solving massive problems, there's no reason anyone would want or even possibly need a computer taking up two bedrooms and chugging gallons of liquid nitrogen every day.

The space program created a need for a miniaturized computer. Prioritizing small size, efficient power consumption, and reducing waste heat generation changed how people looked at computers and what thy could be. It didn't just lead to smaller computers, but cheaper computers as well (vacuum tubes are terribly expensive and frighteningly fragile, where semiconductor transistors and integrated circuits are inexpensive and you can drop them on the floor without damaging them). Miniaturization led to effective technologies that were cheap enough for garage technology enthusiasts to play with these newfangled things, and ultimately generate some of the largest grossing companies in history.

Note: this isn't the "broken window" fallacy, the Broken Window fallacy assumes you're replacing the old window with another window, not replacing the old window with a better window that has improved insulation properties that provides long-term benefits to the energy consumption of the house.

Nice try. First transistor computer was built in 1953. The precursors to the personal computer predate space exploration by years. I have no reason to believe similar developments in the size of computer would not have occurred without Apollo. The Navy and Air Force, for instance, would probably have found use for small computers.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:14 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Sure, NASA toootally made huge, important, and vital contributions in two years. Your other examples? Prove that proving the size of our nation's collective manhood was necessary for them.

NASA: founded in 1958. GPS: development started in 1973. You might want to get a new calculator if it's telling you that 1973-1958 is equal to 2. As for the rest of it, you could just read the rest of my post that you quoted:
Ghostbear wrote:A lot of the technology that results from that research is brought about by the specific needs and conditions of the programs though -- just tossing an equivalent amount of money at other research and saying "make a better computer system!" could very easily have not resulted in the microprocessor. You're also missing the societal interest in science that develops from it -- it's one of the most touted things about it, that it makes children think "science is fucking awesome!" and be more likely to want to work in science.

Dauric also addressed it quite well in their post, though you seemed insistent on ignoring the point there too.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:35 am UTC

Arariel wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS began as a very utilitarian tool funded by the Navy, not just so we could show off how awesome we were.

... You missed the point completely didn't you? Where did the people that built GPS get the technology they used for it? If you go back enough steps, you'll see it came from NASA. Without NASA, the Navy wouldn't have had the fundamental technology it needed to start its initial GPS work.
On the contrary, the first navigational system (with five satellites, and a precursor to GPS) was developed by a university for the Navy, back when NASA was only two years old. So no, not much involvement by them. GPS is and has always been developed by the military.
Whether it was NASA or not is 100% irrelevant. The only relevant fact is the it was space research.
... inspiration for GPS came when the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite, Sputnik in 1957. Two American physicists, William Guier and George Weiffenbach, at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), decided on their own to monitor Sputnik's radio transmissions.[5] Within hours they realized that, because of the Doppler effect, they could pinpoint where the satellite was along its orbit from the Doppler shift.


Arariel wrote:Besides, I'm not arguing against all space funding. Space funding is great, but the entire point of conducting missions should never be "Let's do X so we can show we can and stick it in the face of those commies!" And landing people on Mars or redoing the Moon landings (like the Constellation program that was proposed) just seems to be that kind of thing. I mean, we have all the resources for either already, we could technically do them. I don't see how redoing something we've already done (Moon landings) will develop new technologies, or doing something we've done on a larger scale (landing on Mars) would do so either. We've already landed robots on Mars; why do we need to make humans a priority?
Did you miss this post from Dauric?

Dauric wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.
'Cause y'know computer technologies that were developed for the Apollo capsules have absolutely no applications here on Earth....

Oh, wait.. the technologies that came out of those early integrated circuits are in fucking -EVERYTHING- these days, including that thing you're using to argue with us on this interblag thing.

---

Sending people to Mars will require enormous advances in efficient power consumption, advances in efficiency that can improve our levels of resource consumption here on Earth.

Sending people to Mars will require improvements in filtration and atmosphere processing, improvements that can be used to reduce emissions from gas and coal-fired powerplants, as well as automobiles and factories.

Water filtration and recycling will require advances, advances that can be used to mitigate increased consumption of water in many parts of the world (including the southwest U.S.).

A stable Mars colony will require advances in compact agriculture. Not that every earth-side farm will become space-capsule hydroponics facilities, but that advances in efficient use of water, efficient soil nutrients and efficiently replacing those nutrients in the soil will have significant impacts on food production here.

All the research that goes in to creating a livable, sustainable space capsule can be applied to problems here on Earth if you just use some imagination.
Huh. Apparently you didn't. Well, there's you answer.

Arariel wrote:Not arguing the Moon landings weren't useful the first time; the developments in technology were useful then, even if we could have, you know, developed those technologies WITHOUT having to send someone to the Moon.

But sending people back to the Moon? Or to Mars? Colonisation is a long way off; it's good to take steps toward reductions in costs for space transport now, since that will be inevitable. But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?
And what do you think those steps are, exactly? Hint: Doing the research to make it cheaper.

And why actually send humans instead of simply doing the research? Well, there is no "instead". Anyone can do the research if they feel the need or desire. If it was going to get done by other means, it would have already.

More, importantly, if the research is worthwhile, who cares what the motivations are?

Oh, and I'll just leave this here. Its a loooong list.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:43 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:Sure, NASA toootally made huge, important, and vital contributions in two years. Your other examples? Prove that proving the size of our nation's collective manhood was necessary for them.

NASA: founded in 1958. GPS: development started in 1973. You might want to get a new calculator if it's telling you that 1973-1958 is equal to 2. As for the rest of it, you could just read the rest of my post that you quoted:


Origins of GPS began with the Transit satellite system in 1960, developed by the U.S. Navy.

Ghostbear wrote:A lot of the technology that results from that research is brought about by the specific needs and conditions of the programs though -- just tossing an equivalent amount of money at other research and saying "make a better computer system!" could very easily have not resulted in the microprocessor. You're also missing the societal interest in science that develops from it -- it's one of the most touted things about it, that it makes children think "science is fucking awesome!" and be more likely to want to work in science.

Dauric also addressed it quite well in their post, though you seemed insistent on ignoring the point there too.


Many of the developments that led to smaller computers predate Apollo; microprocessors were developed during the program, but there's no reason to believe they would have been invented significantly later, especially since microprocessors were much cheaper. No doubt the military would have wanted computers on board submarines and aeroplanes to aid in missile tracking, navigation, etc., and you definitely want to make computers as small as possible for that. And the amount of stimulation at most has amounted to kids saying "I want to be an astronaut!" and then forgetting all about it in a few years.

nitePhyyre wrote:
Arariel wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS began as a very utilitarian tool funded by the Navy, not just so we could show off how awesome we were.

... You missed the point completely didn't you? Where did the people that built GPS get the technology they used for it? If you go back enough steps, you'll see it came from NASA. Without NASA, the Navy wouldn't have had the fundamental technology it needed to start its initial GPS work.
On the contrary, the first navigational system (with five satellites, and a precursor to GPS) was developed by a university for the Navy, back when NASA was only two years old. So no, not much involvement by them. GPS is and has always been developed by the military.
Whether it was NASA or not is 100% irrelevant. The only relevant fact is the it was space research.
... inspiration for GPS came when the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite, Sputnik in 1957. Two American physicists, William Guier and George Weiffenbach, at Johns Hopkins's Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), decided on their own to monitor Sputnik's radio transmissions.[5] Within hours they realized that, because of the Doppler effect, they could pinpoint where the satellite was along its orbit from the Doppler shift.


Arariel wrote:Besides, I'm not arguing against all space funding. Space funding is great, but the entire point of conducting missions should never be "Let's do X so we can show we can and stick it in the face of those commies!" And landing people on Mars or redoing the Moon landings (like the Constellation program that was proposed) just seems to be that kind of thing. I mean, we have all the resources for either already, we could technically do them. I don't see how redoing something we've already done (Moon landings) will develop new technologies, or doing something we've done on a larger scale (landing on Mars) would do so either. We've already landed robots on Mars; why do we need to make humans a priority?
Did you miss this post from Dauric?

Dauric wrote:
Arariel wrote:GPS is useful. Arbitrarily sending people to Mars 'cause we gotta beat dem commies? Not so much.
'Cause y'know computer technologies that were developed for the Apollo capsules have absolutely no applications here on Earth....

Oh, wait.. the technologies that came out of those early integrated circuits are in fucking -EVERYTHING- these days, including that thing you're using to argue with us on this interblag thing.

---

Sending people to Mars will require enormous advances in efficient power consumption, advances in efficiency that can improve our levels of resource consumption here on Earth.

Sending people to Mars will require improvements in filtration and atmosphere processing, improvements that can be used to reduce emissions from gas and coal-fired powerplants, as well as automobiles and factories.

Water filtration and recycling will require advances, advances that can be used to mitigate increased consumption of water in many parts of the world (including the southwest U.S.).

A stable Mars colony will require advances in compact agriculture. Not that every earth-side farm will become space-capsule hydroponics facilities, but that advances in efficient use of water, efficient soil nutrients and efficiently replacing those nutrients in the soil will have significant impacts on food production here.

All the research that goes in to creating a livable, sustainable space capsule can be applied to problems here on Earth if you just use some imagination.
Huh. Apparently you didn't. Well, there's you answer.

Arariel wrote:Not arguing the Moon landings weren't useful the first time; the developments in technology were useful then, even if we could have, you know, developed those technologies WITHOUT having to send someone to the Moon.

But sending people back to the Moon? Or to Mars? Colonisation is a long way off; it's good to take steps toward reductions in costs for space transport now, since that will be inevitable. But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?
And what do you think those steps are, exactly? Hint: Doing the research to make it cheaper.

And why actually send humans instead of simply doing the research? Well, there is no "instead". Anyone can do the research if they feel the need or desire. If it was going to get done by other means, it would have already.

More, importantly, if the research is worthwhile, who cares what the motivations are?

Oh, and I'll just leave this here. Its a loooong list.


I'm in no way saying space investment or even research is bad. I'm saying space pen0r-size-proving is bad, and while there may be some results, there would have been much better places to spend the money.

Research is good. Reducing cost is good. Sending someone when it's expensive just to prove we can is stupid, pointless, and wasteful.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:01 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I'm in no way saying space investment or even research is bad. I'm saying space pen0r-size-proving is bad, and while there may be some results, there would have been much better places to spend the money.
Ok, so you are saying it is bad. Why?

Someone donates money/food to starving children. They did it only so they could boast. Was it a bad thing to do?

Again, if someone does something good for a reason you don't happen to agree with, who cares?

Edit: And, pray, do tell us, where would the money have been better spent? =
Last edited by nitePhyyre on Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3486
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Magnanimous » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:02 am UTC

Arariel wrote:But sending people back to the Moon? Or to Mars? Colonisation is a long way off; it's good to take steps toward reductions in costs for space transport now, since that will be inevitable. But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?

This may shock you, but most people are 1) emotional in their decision-making, and 2) not very interested in putting in the money/effort to develop new technologies (especially right now in the US). Sending a robot to Mars is just a science project, but sending a human can get anybody excited... And excited people means NASA gets more than 0.5% of the federal budget.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:09 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Origins of GPS began with the Transit satellite system in 1960, developed by the U.S. Navy.

Yes, "origins" being the operative word here. Do you think they just copy-pasted everything from Transit and called it a day? Or do you think they relied on all the other improved technology from the prior 15 years?

Arariel wrote:Many of the developments that led to smaller computers predate Apollo; microprocessors were developed during the program, but there's no reason to believe they would have been invented significantly later, especially since microprocessors were much cheaper. No doubt the military would have wanted computers on board submarines and aeroplanes to aid in missile tracking, navigation, etc., and you definitely want to make computers as small as possible for that. And the amount of stimulation at most has amounted to kids saying "I want to be an astronaut!" and then forgetting all about it in a few years.

This is why I said "missing the point"; we're offering forests as our examples to you, and you keep highlighting that you don't like some of the leaves. Look deeper into what was said, or read all of my prior post that I quoted. Maybe you can or you can't disprove the shrinking of computers due to NASA -- it doesn't really matter if you can, because that's not the only pillar holding up the argument. In fact, it isn't even the pillar you're thinking of it as -- just that NASA, as a result of the lunar landings, spurred the development of some technology that was extremely useful later. Maybe that technology would have happened anyway, but even then, it would have happened sooner.

Part of the point was that the situations that NASA needs to develop research for causes thinking that would not have happened for research otherwise. It's very possible that nobody would ever have looked back at freeze-drying foods if not for NASA needing to store foods for space programs -- that's just one example, look at the links I gave way back (that you ignored) and see all of the other examples.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:23 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Arariel wrote:I'm in no way saying space investment or even research is bad. I'm saying space pen0r-size-proving is bad, and while there may be some results, there would have been much better places to spend the money.
Ok, so you are saying it is bad. Why?

Someone donates money/food to starving children. They did it only so they could boast. Was it a bad thing to do?

Again, if someone does something good for a reason you don't happen to agree with, who cares?

Edit: And, pray, do tell us, where would the money have been better spent? =


I would say it's more the equivalent of people who buy pointless status symbols like sports cars or Macs just to show how awesome they are. And then you can argue something about multiplier effects, but the point is that sports cars and Macs are only useful as status symbols, and nothing more, in the same way that sending a person to Mars is only useful in saying we did it, because if we wanted scientific information, we could send a robot. As opposed to donating money/food to starving children, where it's possible the reason is not solely to brag.

It's better spend money so travelling to Mars or the Moon will be cheaper than spending it to send people there now. Long-term developments outweigh short-term achievements.

Magnanimous wrote:
Arariel wrote:But sending people back to the Moon? Or to Mars? Colonisation is a long way off; it's good to take steps toward reductions in costs for space transport now, since that will be inevitable. But sending people to Mar right now just because? Why? All those technological developments you mentioned can be done WITHOUT having to actually send anyone. So why?

This may shock you, but most people are 1) emotional in their decision-making, and 2) not very interested in putting in the money/effort to develop new technologies (especially right now in the US). Sending a robot to Mars is just a science project, but sending a human can get anybody excited... And excited people means NASA gets more than 0.5% of the federal budget.

I'm sure politicians would be just as interested in exciting long-term proposals such as colonisation that would no doubt require sending robots to Mars.

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:Origins of GPS began with the Transit satellite system in 1960, developed by the U.S. Navy.

Yes, "origins" being the operative word here. Do you think they just copy-pasted everything from Transit and called it a day? Or do you think they relied on all the other improved technology from the prior 15 years?

Arariel wrote:Many of the developments that led to smaller computers predate Apollo; microprocessors were developed during the program, but there's no reason to believe they would have been invented significantly later, especially since microprocessors were much cheaper. No doubt the military would have wanted computers on board submarines and aeroplanes to aid in missile tracking, navigation, etc., and you definitely want to make computers as small as possible for that. And the amount of stimulation at most has amounted to kids saying "I want to be an astronaut!" and then forgetting all about it in a few years.

This is why I said "missing the point"; we're offering forests as our examples to you, and you keep highlighting that you don't like some of the leaves. Look deeper into what was said, or read all of my prior post that I quoted. Maybe you can or you can't disprove the shrinking of computers due to NASA -- it doesn't really matter if you can, because that's not the only pillar holding up the argument. In fact, it isn't even the pillar you're thinking of it as -- just that NASA, as a result of the lunar landings, spurred the development of some technology that was extremely useful later. Maybe that technology would have happened anyway, but even then, it would have happened sooner.

Part of the point was that the situations that NASA needs to develop research for causes thinking that would not have happened for research otherwise. It's very possible that nobody would ever have looked back at freeze-drying foods if not for NASA needing to store foods for space programs -- that's just one example, look at the links I gave way back (that you ignored) and see all of the other examples.

Freeze-drying developed during WWII
Again, I'm not saying the developments are bad. Space investment is important. Investment being the key word. We can't just throw money at something and say, "Well, I'm sure by doing this, we'll develop something really important." Instead of trying to do something really impressive in the short-term, we should work on something in the long-term that's not only really impressive, but also utilitarian.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:29 am UTC


Which is exactly why I said "looked back" instead of "discovered". I knew it had already been discovered and choose my wording appropriately; pay attention to those words!

Arariel wrote:Again, I'm not saying the developments are bad. Space investment is important. Investment being the key word. We can't just throw money at something and say, "Well, I'm sure by doing this, we'll develop something really important." Instead of trying to do something really impressive in the short-term, we should work on something in the long-term that's not only really impressive, but also utilitarian.

That's not what we're doing when we make those big projects though. We're saying "in developing this, we'll also develop many things that are directly useful in similar ventures and potentially hugely beneficial in other ventures". The benefits of NASA research aren't something that we wouldn't expect -- we can outline a bunch of areas that would be improved by needing to send a person to Mars, and that those improvements would likely not be the same as if we just tried to improve those underlying technologies independently.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:06 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:That's not what we're doing when we make those big projects though. We're saying "in developing this, we'll also develop many things that are directly useful in similar ventures and potentially hugely beneficial in other ventures". The benefits of NASA research aren't something that we wouldn't expect -- we can outline a bunch of areas that would be improved by needing to send a person to Mars, and that those improvements would likely not be the same as if we just tried to improve those underlying technologies independently.

All right. Is there anything we would develop in the process of sending a few people to Mars that we wouldn't develop if we worked on the long-term goal of Martian or even lunar colonisation?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:33 am UTC

Arariel wrote:All right. Is there anything we would develop in the process of sending a few people to Mars that we wouldn't develop if we worked on the long-term goal of Martian or even lunar colonisation?

Better question: can you think of anything produced while developing a project for landing a person on Mars or Luna that would not be useful when colonizing that same celestial body? I can't imagine any rational colonization effort that would not include as a preceding step "Send a person here". It'd be a necessary testing bed for all the essential technologies for that colonization!

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:57 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:All right. Is there anything we would develop in the process of sending a few people to Mars that we wouldn't develop if we worked on the long-term goal of Martian or even lunar colonisation?

Better question: can you think of anything produced while developing a project for landing a person on Mars or Luna that would not be useful when colonizing that same celestial body? I can't imagine any rational colonization effort that would not include as a preceding step "Send a person here". It'd be a necessary testing bed for all the essential technologies for that colonization!

Of course. But we do that when transportation costs are cheaper. That should really be the priority there.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:59 am UTC

Arariel wrote:I would say it's more the equivalent of people who buy pointless status symbols like sports cars or Macs just to show how awesome they are. And then you can argue something about multiplier effects, but the point is that sports cars and Macs are only useful as status symbols, and nothing more, in the same way that sending a person to Mars is only useful in saying we did it, because if we wanted scientific information, we could send a robot. As opposed to donating money/food to starving children, where it's possible the reason is not solely to brag.


The largest weight of innovation in automobiles don't happen in family commuter cars, they happen in high-end status-symbol penis-extensions. Onboard GPS, back-up-cameras, air bags, CD players, roll-cages, radios, seat-belts, headlights were all status symbol pieces to prove that your wallet was bigger at one time than someone else's and now they're commonplace.

Every piece of technology you take for granted today at it's introduction was a lavish expense frequently bought to "keep up with the Jones's" as the saying went. In the 1980's a computer was a nerd-cred toy without any practical application. Now it's practically necessary infrastructure.

That "waste of money" in "Penis enhancement" is what funds the advances from a technology's expensive research beginnings to common everyday devices.

It's the short term goals that make the long-term goals possible.

----

Another thought: It's expensive now. What will make it any cheaper in the future? At what point does martian colonization become so vital that your argument about penis waving no longer apply? How severe do you imagine the problems would be that people will fund proper colonization, instead of arguing that sending people to another planet is penis waving? If the situation is to the point that we need to move some portion of the population to another planet how much time do you think we can waste on failures and redesigns? The Apollo capsule's interior had to be almost completely redesigned after a fire on the launch pad that claimed three lives. Should we wait and delay experience with space-travel to the point that a similarly basic design failure claims hundreds of lives on the first colony ship rather than on one of a dozen test flights?

The research and technology won't be magically ready when there's enough need that people can't successfully argue that it's penis waving. Some failures will only be known in the process of doing, by practical experience, not by just theoretical modelling. If you delay gaining that practical experience until there becomes a dire need then you're going to be gaining that experience without a comfort zone. Your ability to delay and redesign is going to be defined by factors outside the research.

And the governments that are best able to do the research? They're the ones that can weather the needs that make research necessary, stave off the need to do the research the longest, the governments where the population and politicians can claim the research is just "penis waving" the longest.

So if the research is predicated on an expensive penis-waving competition between nations I'm all for it. The stakes for failure are a hell of a lot lower in a penis-waving competition than they are if there's enough need that you can get enough political support behind the program.

Besides, I'd much rather governments spent tax dollars in penis-waving space programs than on new and innovative ways of actually blowing eachother up.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:10 am UTC

Dauric wrote:
Arariel wrote:I would say it's more the equivalent of people who buy pointless status symbols like sports cars or Macs just to show how awesome they are. And then you can argue something about multiplier effects, but the point is that sports cars and Macs are only useful as status symbols, and nothing more, in the same way that sending a person to Mars is only useful in saying we did it, because if we wanted scientific information, we could send a robot. As opposed to donating money/food to starving children, where it's possible the reason is not solely to brag.


The largest weight of innovation in automobiles don't happen in family commuter cars, they happen in high-end status-symbol penis-extensions. Onboard GPS, back-up-cameras, air bags, CD players, roll-cages, radios, seat-belts, headlights were all status symbol pieces to prove that your wallet was bigger at one time than someone else's and now they're commonplace.

Every piece of technology you take for granted today at it's introduction was a lavish expense frequently bought to "keep up with the Jones's" as the saying went. In the 1980's a computer was a nerd-cred toy without any practical application. Now it's practically necessary infrastructure.

That "waste of money" in "Penis enhancement" is what funds the advances from a technology's expensive research beginnings to common everyday devices.

It's the short term goals that make the long-term goals possible.


Except those are all developments with a purpose other than purely to show off. It's ridiculous if anyone in the 1980s bought a computer just to show off and not use it all. There are other, legitimate reasons besides just showing off.


Another thought: It's expensive now. What will make it any cheaper in the future? At what point does martian colonization become so vital that your argument about penis waving no longer apply? How severe do you imagine the problems would be that people will fund proper colonization, instead of arguing that sending people to another planet is penis waving? If the situation is to the point that we need to move some portion of the population to another planet how much time do you think we can waste on failures and redesigns? The Apollo capsule's interior had to be almost completely redesigned after a fire on the launch pad that claimed three lives. Should we wait and delay experience with space-travel to the point that a similarly basic design failure claims hundreds of lives on the first colony ship rather than on one of a dozen test flights?

The research and technology won't be magically ready when there's enough need that people can't successfully argue that it's penis waving. Some failures will only be known in the process of doing, by practical experience, not by just theoretical modelling. If you delay gaining that practical experience until there becomes a dire need then you're going to be gaining that experience without a comfort zone. Your ability to delay and redesign is going to be defined by factors outside the research.

And the governments that are best able to do the research? They're the ones that can weather the needs that make research necessary, stave off the need to do the research the longest, the governments where the population and politicians can claim the research is just "penis waving" the longest.

So if the research is predicated on and expensive penis-waving competition between nations I'm all for it. The stakes for failure are a hell of a lot lower in a penis-waving competition than they are if there's enough need that you can get enough political support behind the program.

Besides, I'd much rather governments spent tax dollars in penis-waving space programs than on new and innovative ways of actually blowing eachother up.


Have I said we shouldn't do any space research? Of course not. Research is important. But instead of basing research off of penis-waving, we should base it off of useful goals that we can gain something from.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:16 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Of course. But we do that when transportation costs are cheaper. That should really be the priority there.

How do you intend to get the transportation costs cheaper except through research?

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Arariel » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:21 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Arariel wrote:Of course. But we do that when transportation costs are cheaper. That should really be the priority there.

How do you intend to get the transportation costs cheaper except through research?

Gee, I dunno...

Have I said we shouldn't do any space research? Of course not. Research is important. But instead of basing research off of penis-waving, we should base it off of useful goals that we can gain something from.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: China sends her first female astronaut to SPACE

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:27 am UTC

Arariel wrote:Gee, I dunno...

Except you've gone ahead and described every effective route to get that research done as useless dick waving. So you're for research that isn't dick waving, but you've gone ahead and said that all research is dick waving. Why is colonization not a waste of money, but human landings as part of a process to get the technology for a colonization effort to be successful is a waste of money?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests