How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

[Danke]

Debunko the clown attempts another blow and the roundabout lands squarely on his own military _trained_ chin flooring him to the RP forum mat. Typical roundabout drivel. You provided nothing but some hackneyed walleyed ego trip and purported that to be sufficient to forestall my impression of you as an uniformed fool. Your military training..read _training_..serves you so well. You were a mere flunky and pretend to be a black ops particpant. If you were your training would let you know your family and friends were just put under the gun for admissions of such..if you actually were.. Try again clown.. just how do you explain the Watson videos? They ain't commsats.

<taps foot awaiting another dump of drivel from some unread or non-comprehending clown on the internets>


Randy

Doesn't really address anything brought up in this thread, does it? We enjoyed your slam on obvious trolls that come along (but since it was obvious, we really didn't need your somewhat amusing posts), but here you are way out of your League. Run along now.

 

[Danke]

Another wordsmithing post is brewing, I can sense it.

 

[Kludge]

 

[Danke]

Another wordsmithing post is brewing, I can sense it.

I guess my senses are failing me.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/runaway.wav

 

[Revolution9]

Doesn't really address anything brought up in this thread, does it? We enjoyed your slam on obvious trolls that come along (but since it was obvious, we really didn't need your somewhat amusing posts), but here you are way out of your League. Run along now.

Sure it does. The post that brought it up originally was the one that stated that space exploration, vehicle building, magnetic shielding against cosmic rays, sustenance of a human being in a closed outer space environment, recycling of waste in this closed environment.. etc..were part of the purview of National defense. When someone is abducted that is kidnapping, under federal jurisdiction, and could be considered an act of espionage as well.. When bogeys enter our airspace unidentified and do so with total disregard for what we consider advanced weaponry and planes then that again falls under the purview of National Defense. To ignore these things, which are well documented falls under the purview of complete blinkered idiocy. Perhaps military budgets should not have so many exploding bombs but focus more on advanced energetics tech and non commodity depletion weapons tech. Every bomb we explode cuts down the amount of scrap metal we can put to productive use.

BTW.. Yer pre-emptive rabbit BS was trigger happied onto here seeming to think I was glued to your reply, which was simply more of the same with a kinder and gentler tone..then ya thought you had some nads..which were yours actually, by the short and curlies and posted yer silly wabbit pic.. The facts still remain you cannot debate your way through or out of this and the only weapon in your arsenal of rhetoric is your pea shooter of dismissal.

Answer this clown.. What is it that Watson is videographing? Are they ours or theirs and which theirs if they ain't ours?

Randy

 

[torchbearer]

any questions?

 

[Highland]

Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

because it helps us micronize our technology here on earth....I hope you like your lappy and PC.....thank NASA when you pray over those cornflakes!

 

[torchbearer]

because it helps us micronize our technology here on earth....I hope you like your lappy and PC.....thank NASA when you pray over those cornflakes!

Nasa has an active education program when I was younger.
They had people visit our school and stuff.. it was very cool.
They told us NASA didn't keep secrets and shared its patents. Is this true? And if not, why not?

 

[WRellim]

Lol you have to be kidding, spaceshipone by virgin galactic only goes to suborbital space. The X15 was meant to go to orbital. Do you even understand the difference? Well its MASSIVE to let you know.

Well, to begin with "SpaceShipOne" was not a "Virgin Galactic" project, but rather a project by Scaled Composites and funded Paul Allen's group. Branson and his Virgin group did not get involved until well over a year AFTER the successful flights.

So you get an "F" for that.

And as others have mentioned X15 was in fact (like Rutan's "SpaceShipOne") only capable of sub-orbital flight; and the X15B (which would NOT have been launched from B52 but rather was planned to be a top stage aboard a modified Navaho missile -- was in fact canceled before development got much beyond the early planning stages).

You get a second "F" for that as well.

As to the fact that suborbital and orbital are of significant difference, YES the flight paths are different, but the difference is really more one of degree, rather than nature. For example the first manned Mercury flights, Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7 -- launched atop the ABMA develope Redstone missles -- were suborbital; but the later Mercury manned flights, Friendship, Aurora, Sigma and Faith 7 -- launched atop the Atlas boosters -- were orbital; the major difference being in the total thrust available from the booster and thus the altitude and speed that the capsules could reach; but the inherent design and functional principles of both the booster systems were very similar, AND the capsules were virtually identical. In other words, there is LESS difference between a suborbital and orbital system, than there is between say a propeller driven aircraft and a jet aircraft.

At best, we can grade you with a "D-" on this one.

Your total grade so far... slightly above "F".

So, rather obviously YOU are not as familiar with this subject as you pretend to be... but go ahead and BS some more. Maybe you can take the NASA "brute-force" approach and just throw tons of words at everyone.

 

[WRellim]

One word: TANG!

any questions?

Ummm... as has already been mentioned, "Tang" -- just like a host of other innovations that people erroneously attribute to NASA -- was merely "popularized" by them.

In point of fact, Tang (and Velcro, and even Integrated Circuit chips) were all developed privately, and entirely independent of NASA, which was just a "purchaser" of later versions of these products.

So for NASA to take credit for any of these is the equivalent of the local print shops taking credit for "innovating" the Laser Printer because they happened to buy one of the first Apple Laserwriter models; such a claim would be both ridiculous and facetious.

But NASA has no sense of shame. (Why would it? It's a government bureaucracy that is always in search of more taxpayer funds...)

 

[torchbearer]

Ummm... as has already been mentioned, "Tang" -- just like a host of other innovations that people erroneously attribute to NASA -- was merely "popularized" by them.

In point of fact, Tang (and Velcro, and even Integrated Circuit chips) were all developed privately, and entirely independent of NASA, which was just a "purchaser" of later versions of these products.

So for NASA to take credit for any of these is the equivalent of the local print shops taking credit for "innovating" the Laser Printer because they happened to buy one of the first Apple Laserwriter models; such a claim would be both ridiculous and facetious.

But NASA has no sense of shame. (Why would it? It's a government bureaucracy that is always in search of more taxpayer funds...)

It was meant to be humor.
I'm sure the government contract for Tang helped the private company get it out to the public.
Though, I'm not even certain astronauts even used the stuff.
DO they still make it? I haven't had seen it or drank it in 25 years.

 

[WRellim]

Nasa has an active education program when I was younger.
They had people visit our school and stuff.. it was very cool.
They told us NASA didn't keep secrets and shared its patents. Is this true? And if not, why not?

Actually, what NASA had was a PR program that went around to captive (and sometimes voluntary) audiences of impressionable people... where they spouted all kinds of BS about how all of their "innovations" had helped mankind. (Reality is a bit different from NASA PR -- see Tang, Velcro & Integrated Circuits discussed above).

There was very little about NASA's program that would truly qualify it as "educational" -- it was more in the vein of the flash & bang "experiments" done by science teachers to "excite" their students. Such things make a lot of smoke and noise, and perhaps even make an impression on students -- but they have all of the value of a "Diet Coke & Mentos" video -- and sadly, they teach virtually NOTHING about science.

As to NASA being supposedly "generous" with it's patents -- basically they LIED about that one as well.

The reality is that majority of any "innovations" that occur are in fact designed at and patented by private contractors. But, unfortunately, in the remaining cases, where NASA employed engineers do design something new, NASA itself DOES take out patents, and recently (in an attempt to gain funds, albeit a measly amount that probably didn't even cover the legal costs) auctioned off the rights to many of them.

(Now, since NASA is a taxpayer funded government institution it is sometimes argued that technically they should not even be eligible for patents, and that if they ARE issued regardless, then such inventions should be in the public domain since the public has already paid for their development; and should not have to pay yet another "premium" for products based on them.)

 

[WRellim]

It was meant to be humor.

Yeah, I figured your (picture) post was... it's just that it's a blatant lie that never seems to die. (One of many that I was fed as a kid... and which pissed me off further when I found out the truth).

I'm sure the government contract for Tang helped the private company get it out to the public.

Actually from my understanding, it was the opposite. More like "product placement" -- the company that made Tang (General Foods?) agreed to donate a bunch of it if they could claim "used by the Astronauts" in their advertising; and as NASA was all about "building hype" and free PR, they agreed.

Though, I'm not even certain astronauts even used the stuff.

As far as I know, they didn't. Nor did they actually eat the "food stick" things that were sold at around the same time with similar claims.

DO they still make it? I haven't had seen it or drank it in 25 years.

You mean other than as pre-sweetened Kool-Aid? Yes, you can still buy it, but you have to hunt for it... I think it's marketed as a "sports drink" nowadays -- and they gave up all of the BS about astronauts drinking it.


BTW the same guy who invented "Tang" also invented the "Pop-Rocks" candy -- I'm surprised he didn't try to sell them as "moon-rocks" (!?!?) -- then NASA could claim yet another "taste-sensation" as an innovation; they could probably even use it as a reason why we need to go back to the moon and get more rocks -- otherwise the children of the future might be deprived. ("Someone think of the children!!!")

 

[werdd]

I guess the private sector would have to propagandize fake moon landings to make the people believe they are actually accomplishing something.

 

[jyakulis]

yeah and look at all the technologies the government has helped repressed and then tell me about some of the great technologies they've created.

i do like the space program though. satellites are pretty handy.

 

[PaulineDisciple]

It's unconstitutional, space travel is not a function of government. Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of all individuals, and the right not to have our money stolen from us for any other purpose than to secure these rights should not even be entertained for a second. IOW, about 90 percent or more of what our government currently does should be considered theft.

 

[Truth Warrior]

"The thought of how far the human race [might] have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination." -Attributed to Doug Casey, 1979

 

[Truth Warrior]

"The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as "free education" is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education - just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office - and cannot possibly be separated from political control." -- Frank Chodorov​

 

[Elwar]

Again...NASA has defense department implications, Satellites, missile defense, etc...all very Constitutional in providing for the defense of our country.

That's why Ron Paul voted for NASA funding.

 

[Danke]

When someone is abducted that is kidnapping, under federal jurisdiction

To ignore these things, which are well documented falls under the purview of complete blinkered idiocy.

BTW.. Yer pre-emptive rabbit BS was trigger happied onto here seeming to think I was glued to your reply

No assclown, you were continually replying with ad hominems without addressing any thing about what was being addressed; out of control spending on the military. And then you brought in Aliens as a reason to support NASA'a budget. To many fiction books I guess. Up the meds and go get help.