| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2012 07:27:30 PM · #51 |
This achievement truly is amazing - awesome! Absolutely worthy of celebration!
Here is an analogy that has nothing to do with this, yet does. My mother was appalled at people wasting money on pets (not extreme veterinary interventions or lavish doggie lifestyles - just feeding them). She imagined that if we did not waste all that money the world could be a better place for the poor. Would all that pet food money go to the poor if we didn't keep pets? Of course not. And this reasoning also ignored the fact that there are human benefits to keeping pets. I see a parallel to the arguments about money spent on space exploration.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2012 07:42:56 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
I stayed up last night with my brother Rick on XBOX live and watched the whole thing. He lives about 50 miles from me now but we have always watched the NASA adventure from as long as I can remember. Here's a quick NASA video of the events of last night. vid |
Thanks for the link. Awesome excitement through each critical stage of the landing! Now I can't wait for some actual footage from the this event. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 12:29:04 AM · #53 |
More than 3billion people strugle to survive on 2$ a day and 3 million children will die of hunger this year and the next, can we even start to comprehend what dying of hunger must feel like and yet sombody does just that every 3 seconds. If we could relieve the suffering of even one child instead of spending vast amounts on exploring mars then personnely I think it would be worth it. As a family and on our extremely limited budget we manage to sponsor two kids that would otherwise be going hungry.
If by thinking that it would be wonderful if we could try solving some of the major issues here before exploring some barren rock 200 million miles away is myopically narrowing my horizons, then yes, short sited I am.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:14:06 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by jagar:
If by thinking that it would be wonderful if we could try solving some of the major issues here before exploring some barren rock 200 million miles away is myopically narrowing my horizons, then yes, short sited I am. |
John, I appreciate what you're saying but it's a false equivalency. From the perspective you're outlining, there are countless things that, if they were not done and the money instead spent on feeding the hungry, would alleviate the problem. But it's not an either/or thing; money-not-spent on (fill in your least favorite frivolous pursuit here) does not translate into money-now-spent on world hunger, or whatever other worthy cause one might advocate. But since you're in the position of suggesting things we shouldn't do until all the world is fed and sheltered, shouldn't you put WAR high on the list? How about confiscatory taxation on all incomes in excess of, say, 10x the world median income, with the extra monies gained used to elevate the living standards of the poorest peoples?
Of course, I doubt you're advocating for a simple feed-the-hungry plan; I assume you're suggesting a push to "solve world hunger" that emulates the push to "reach for the stars" that got mankind into space in the first place. And I agree wholeheartedly, we SHOULD focus talents and money on such things. But what is it about the space program that makes it so taboo to you? Without the (historical) space program we wouldn't have satellites, and we wouldn't be talking together like this. And so forth, and so on. The quest to conquer new frontiers and acquire new and greater knowledge, however esoteric it may seem at first blush, always seems to pay dividends in the end.
R. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 01:24:55 AM · #55 |
| Often it seems like they are just throwing a robot at a barren rock. But the technology that comes out of NASA and other space programs has done wonders in improving the world. Many of the technology advances also improve the impoverished world. One that readily comes to mind is cheap charcoal water filtration. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 02:13:02 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jagar:
If by thinking that it would be wonderful if we could try solving some of the major issues here before exploring some barren rock 200 million miles away is myopically narrowing my horizons, then yes, short sited I am. |
John, I appreciate what you're saying but it's a false equivalency. From the perspective you're outlining, there are countless things that, if they were not done and the money instead spent on feeding the hungry, would alleviate the problem. But it's not an either/or thing; money-not-spent on (fill in your least favorite frivolous pursuit here) does not translate into money-now-spent on world hunger, or whatever other worthy cause one might advocate. But since you're in the position of suggesting things we shouldn't do until all the world is fed and sheltered, shouldn't you put WAR high on the list? How about confiscatory taxation on all incomes in excess of, say, 10x the world median income, with the extra monies gained used to elevate the living standards of the poorest peoples?
Of course, I doubt you're advocating for a simple feed-the-hungry plan; I assume you're suggesting a push to "solve world hunger" that emulates the push to "reach for the stars" that got mankind into space in the first place. And I agree wholeheartedly, we SHOULD focus talents and money on such things. But what is it about the space program that makes it so taboo to you? Without the (historical) space program we wouldn't have satellites, and we wouldn't be talking together like this. And so forth, and so on. The quest to conquer new frontiers and acquire new and greater knowledge, however esoteric it may seem at first blush, always seems to pay dividends in the end.
R. |
Yes, just like in formular 1 there are great technoligial advances that have and will be made, Imagine how much more those techlogical advances might be on a altruistic level if the push was channeled in the right direction. Amongst countless other critical issues like mass starvation, there is the issue of saving this very planet from global warming and the vast humanitarian problems this is and will cause, It is in my mind just a simple question of priorities and a sure indication of the direction society as a whole is taking, we would prefer to be on some exotic trip than to face the all to painful questions that face us. Acquiring greater knowelge for the benefit of mankind is the way to go forward, striving towards new frontiers when the old ones haven't yet been explored or controlled is not the best path, on both a human and a spiritual level. We don't build a house on dodgy foundations, how can we possibly have the pretension to say we are conquering new frontiers when the world we live in is in such a state, like ostriches we are.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:25:49 AM · #57 |
Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower.
And yes Robert, I would be completely for doing whatever is needed to acheive an equitable distribution of resources, including lowering my own to meet the medium. Admittedly this robot thing is just the tip of the iceberg and compared to other wasteful human endeavors it's very small indeed. I do respect the men and women that achieved such a feat but I cannot ethically support the aim when terrestrial humanitarian frontiers are so short on cash. I am probably being to "down to earth" and I should be more of a "lunatic" ;-)
Again I'm sorry if I offended anybody in my stance but i know we can share conflicting opinions in a calm carefree manner here.
Edited because iPhone has mind of its own.
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 04:40:14. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 08:39:36 AM · #58 |
| If the US spent as much money on space exploration as we give in humanitarian aid worldwide we would already have a colony on the moon or beyond. The sad part is that a great amount of the aid we give to impoverished countries winds up in the hands of a few. Corruption and greed exists and channeling the NASA money to feed the hungry probably wouldn't even get to the intended people. You fix the corruption in those countries and I will gladly give half of my annual income. I give through my church which in turn actually sends missionaries out to the areas you speak of and we can see the results. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:07:20 AM · #59 |
Interesting point.
I found that in 2010, US humanitarian aid totaled $76.9 billion (government and private).
Total NASA budget in 2010 was $18.7 billion. Mars Science Rover budget - a puny $2.5 billion. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:21:02 AM · #60 |
| The problem is what US (and not only US) spend in wars... |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:30:13 AM · #61 |
Now we are into the discussion of wars in a thread about space exploration. I guess the US shouldn't have entered WWII and saved all that money in research and development, sharing weaponry, and rebuilding.
Y'all have fun here! |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:34:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
The problem is what US (and not only US) spend in wars... |
Yes I couldn't agree more, be careful though, you'll have people explaining to you all the marvelous technological gains we acheive by developing and making wars. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:36:33 AM · #63 |
I'm sure 18.7 billion and 2.8 billion sound puny to some but i bet they won't and don't sound puny if you and your loved ones are starving to death.
Incidentally I wasn't just referring to hungry and impoverished people in far away none Christian countries, or the inequalities between our own countries and the poorest in the world, those same inequalities exist under our very noses and in our vey back yards. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:37:57 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower.
And yes Robert, I would be completely for doing whatever is needed to acheive an equitable distribution of resources, including lowering my own to meet the medium. Admittedly this robot thing is just the tip of the iceberg and compared to other wasteful human endeavors it's very small indeed. I do respect the men and women that achieved such a feat but I cannot ethically support the aim when terrestrial humanitarian frontiers are so short on cash. I am probably being to "down to earth" and I should be more of a "lunatic" ;-)
Again I'm sorry if I offended anybody in my stance but i know we can share conflicting opinions in a calm carefree manner here.
Edited because iPhone has mind of its own. |
Rather than postulating how much money could be spent to hand people food instead of doing space exploration, why not focus on how many people are hungry because of war and how much money is spent on fueling such conflicts.
Blaming space exploration programs, or any other scientific research programs (CERN, ISS etc.), by saying that money should be spent to feed people hungry because two governments have decided to settle their differences by going to war is not addressing the root cause. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:43:39 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Now we are into the discussion of wars in a thread about space exploration. I guess the US shouldn't have entered WWII and saved all that money in research and development, sharing weaponry, and rebuilding.
Y'all have fun here! |
I'm not against space exploration but surely I'm against wars - people here are greatful for what has been done during WW2 but then not every war US have done was, how can I say... "necessary"...
But talking about Space Exploration, I'm a sci-fi lover and I really hope man could reach Mars, nonetheless I hope that people can begin to reflect on how meaningless can be dying for hunger in 2012... |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:47:35 AM · #66 |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 09:59:28 AM · #67 |
I can't hear the speech, of course, but I found a summary, excerpted here:
Originally posted by Neil Tyson:
⢠No. 4: âCarbon is the foundation for life.â Carbon is the most âchemically fertileâ element on the periodic table, capable of making the most kinds of molecules, Tyson said. And because âbiology is the most complex chemistry we know,â it makes sense that carbon is the basis of life.
⢠No. 3: âLife is of the universe.â The most abundant elements in the human body are, in order, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. That list matches precisely with the list, in order of abundance, of chemically active elements in the universe.
⢠No. 2: âThe universe is of life.â High-mass stars that âexplode their guts across the galaxyâ scatter, across the universe, the elements from which people and planets are made, Tyson said. These bursting stellar bodies are called âsupernovae,â and âthey are so bright that we can see them halfway across the galaxy,â he said.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this story, to Tysonâs last and No. 1 thought: âWe are stardust.â
âThe ingredients of the universe are traceable to us,â he told the audience. âThe ingredients are traceable to the universe. And Iâm left, then, with the most profound thoughtâ¦the most profound gift to civilization that modern astrophysics has to offer. And that is the notion that, not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.â
Reader Comments
Rama Dey-Rao says:
I would add:
He lamented the loss of an invigorating goal for NASA of boldly going where no man has gone before and said that without conquerable frontiers as goals we were depriving our kids of challenge and enterprise. While confirming that what was being spent on NASA was a half penny to the dollar he felt sure that we could strike a balance between our spending on matters earthly and serious for the planetâs society to function and yet have more than enough for the stars and the galaxies. If carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements are what we and the universe are made of, there is no doubt that we are one of the other. |
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 10:00:30. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:05:40 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't hear the speech, of course, but I found a summary, excerpted here:
Originally posted by Neil Tyson:
⢠No. 4: âCarbon is the foundation for life.â Carbon is the most âchemically fertileâ element on the periodic table, capable of making the most kinds of molecules, Tyson said. And because âbiology is the most complex chemistry we know,â it makes sense that carbon is the basis of life.
⢠No. 3: âLife is of the universe.â The most abundant elements in the human body are, in order, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. That list matches precisely with the list, in order of abundance, of chemically active elements in the universe.
⢠No. 2: âThe universe is of life.â High-mass stars that âexplode their guts across the galaxyâ scatter, across the universe, the elements from which people and planets are made, Tyson said. These bursting stellar bodies are called âsupernovae,â and âthey are so bright that we can see them halfway across the galaxy,â he said.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this story, to Tysonâs last and No. 1 thought: âWe are stardust.â
âThe ingredients of the universe are traceable to us,â he told the audience. âThe ingredients are traceable to the universe. And Iâm left, then, with the most profound thoughtâ¦the most profound gift to civilization that modern astrophysics has to offer. And that is the notion that, not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.â
Reader Comments
Rama Dey-Rao says:
I would add:
He lamented the loss of an invigorating goal for NASA of boldly going where no man has gone before and said that without conquerable frontiers as goals we were depriving our kids of challenge and enterprise. While confirming that what was being spent on NASA was a half penny to the dollar he felt sure that we could strike a balance between our spending on matters earthly and serious for the planetâs society to function and yet have more than enough for the stars and the galaxies. If carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements are what we and the universe are made of, there is no doubt that we are one of the other. |
|
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:08:18 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
Well, he's the heir-apparent to Sagan at PBS. It's an important role, it's message that needs repeating. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:08:51 AM · #70 |
Not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.
We are stardust.
Once truly understood, the quest is an inner one not an outward one.
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 10:09:07. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:11:55 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.
We are stardust.
Once truly understood, the quest is an inner one not an outward one. |
Originally posted by T. S. Eliot, "4 Quartets":
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the appleÂtree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, halfÂheard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea. |
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:12:41 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
Well, he's the heir-apparent to Sagan at PBS. It's an important role, it's message that needs repeating. |
Forgive me, but I preferred Sagan. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:15:06 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't hear the speech, of course, but I found a summary, excerpted here:
Originally posted by Neil Tyson:
⢠No. 4: âCarbon is the foundation for life.â Carbon is the most âchemically fertileâ element on the periodic table, capable of making the most kinds of molecules, Tyson said. And because âbiology is the most complex chemistry we know,â it makes sense that carbon is the basis of life.
⢠No. 3: âLife is of the universe.â The most abundant elements in the human body are, in order, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. That list matches precisely with the list, in order of abundance, of chemically active elements in the universe.
⢠No. 2: âThe universe is of life.â High-mass stars that âexplode their guts across the galaxyâ scatter, across the universe, the elements from which people and planets are made, Tyson said. These bursting stellar bodies are called âsupernovae,â and âthey are so bright that we can see them halfway across the galaxy,â he said.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this story, to Tysonâs last and No. 1 thought: âWe are stardust.â
âThe ingredients of the universe are traceable to us,â he told the audience. âThe ingredients are traceable to the universe. And Iâm left, then, with the most profound thoughtâ¦the most profound gift to civilization that modern astrophysics has to offer. And that is the notion that, not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.â
Reader Comments
Rama Dey-Rao says:
I would add:
He lamented the loss of an invigorating goal for NASA of boldly going where no man has gone before and said that without conquerable frontiers as goals we were depriving our kids of challenge and enterprise. While confirming that what was being spent on NASA was a half penny to the dollar he felt sure that we could strike a balance between our spending on matters earthly and serious for the planetâs society to function and yet have more than enough for the stars and the galaxies. If carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements are what we and the universe are made of, there is no doubt that we are one of the other. |
|
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
I posted it as an eloquent response to those who do seem to slag NASA as unimportant, or as a waste of resources.
As for insulting Neil Degrasse Tyson, whatever. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:18:33 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jagar:
Not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.
We are stardust.
Once truly understood, the quest is an inner one not an outward one. |
Originally posted by T. S. Eliot, "4 Quartets":
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the appleÂtree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, halfÂheard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea. |
|
Wonderful poem Bear and as I read it I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:59:22 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't hear the speech, of course, but I found a summary, excerpted here:
Originally posted by Neil Tyson:
⢠No. 4: âCarbon is the foundation for life.â Carbon is the most âchemically fertileâ element on the periodic table, capable of making the most kinds of molecules, Tyson said. And because âbiology is the most complex chemistry we know,â it makes sense that carbon is the basis of life.
⢠No. 3: âLife is of the universe.â The most abundant elements in the human body are, in order, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. That list matches precisely with the list, in order of abundance, of chemically active elements in the universe.
⢠No. 2: âThe universe is of life.â High-mass stars that âexplode their guts across the galaxyâ scatter, across the universe, the elements from which people and planets are made, Tyson said. These bursting stellar bodies are called âsupernovae,â and âthey are so bright that we can see them halfway across the galaxy,â he said.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this story, to Tysonâs last and No. 1 thought: âWe are stardust.â
âThe ingredients of the universe are traceable to us,â he told the audience. âThe ingredients are traceable to the universe. And Iâm left, then, with the most profound thoughtâ¦the most profound gift to civilization that modern astrophysics has to offer. And that is the notion that, not only are we in this universe, the universe is in us.â
Reader Comments
Rama Dey-Rao says:
I would add:
He lamented the loss of an invigorating goal for NASA of boldly going where no man has gone before and said that without conquerable frontiers as goals we were depriving our kids of challenge and enterprise. While confirming that what was being spent on NASA was a half penny to the dollar he felt sure that we could strike a balance between our spending on matters earthly and serious for the planetâs society to function and yet have more than enough for the stars and the galaxies. If carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements are what we and the universe are made of, there is no doubt that we are one of the other. |
|
Jeez... So the guy paraphrases Carl Sagan and I'm supposed to be somehow impressed? |
I posted it as an eloquent response to those who do seem to slag NASA as unimportant, or as a waste of resources.
As for insulting Neil Degrasse Tyson, whatever. |
The joke here is that I just watched the video..
I don't know where that transcript came from, but the video didn't cover Sagan's material at all.
I agree with him on the points made in the video, and love his final line "A half penny on the dollar... How much would you pay for the universe?"...
Frankly, at this point, I just take umbrage with that transcript.  Bear_music, do you use the CC transcription on youtube? I know it's not at all perfect, but it certainly performed better than that transcript you found... at least for this video. :)
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 11:00:45. |
|
