quote Originally posted by Formula88: Of course not everyone agrees. I also think many who don't agree are simply unaware of the value, which is why I tried to list some of it. You obviously don't approve of the expense. You also are obviously unaware of what they do, so you can't have a realistic understanding of anything that goes on there, but that doesn't stop you from saying it's a waste. You don't want to support it - fine. I could respect that opinion much more if it were made from an informed position. I'm sure you don't care if I respect your opinion or not, though, so carry on.

The same could be said for any government program. It is not an uninformed decision. It is a realistic decision. We can't afford to fund everything, unless we raise taxes, which most are against... or maybe raise taxes on the super rich, to fund some of these programs? I can say the same thing for other programs. I am not singling out the Space Station, as it is just one example of something that the US is not supporting any more (evident with the cancellation of the shuttle), and should we continue to provide funding for something that has been determined to be of lower value (that is based on funding decisions of our leaders, not me).

You say it is of value, based on what you believe is of value... this is where we differ. It is the value we obtain from the government project. Sure, $800B in stimulus was a waste, I agree... but extending the unemployment... well, that had some value. Bailing out the banks.... or GM... yup, some value... but I am not sure it was really worth it.. but again, that is the value I place on these things. We have tens of thousands of researchers here on the ground doing excellent work and with more funding, they could have break throughs. Where do you draw the line at funding those? Just because they are not in space, doesn't mean what they are working on isn't of value.

We differ as I see the ISS not as a vehicle for research, but more of a statement of what we can do to put something into space. The research is used to validate the existence to everyone here on the ground. Who wouldn't want to create a space station? How cool is that! Just a difference of priorities of our tax dollars. How long do we need to stay in the ISS? When will we be done? How will that be determined?

NASA created some great things back in the day (computer memory, velcro, etc)... but that was because we had a goal to send a man to the moon. What is the goal of the ISS? To circle the earth? To keep humans in orbit? The US likes goals with time frames, not unending events, like some wars.

BTW... the memory I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: IMO, If we don't have a "toe in it", it will be so much harder to get started again. And we tend to lose our knowledge quickly- I believe there's stuff we did in the previous 'capsule' era which we needed to re-lean because of various reasons... IF YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH BEYOND, THEY WILL FALL BEHIND.

Agreed - when the Canadian goberment decided to kill off the Avro Arrow project in 1959, it pretty much killed off Canada's aerospace industy at the time as there was a large brain drain to the US (and some to Europe), who at the time was supporting this industry. Canada lost most if not all it's aerospace engineer's to NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.

I hope the same does not happen to the US...

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: We differ as I see the ISS not as a vehicle for research, but more of a statement of what we can do to put something into space. The research is used to validate the existence to everyone here on the ground. Who wouldn't want to create a space station? How cool is that! Just a difference of priorities of our tax dollars. How long do we need to stay in the ISS? When will we be done? How will that be determined?

This is like Japan saying they do reasearch on whales. Let me see it. Where is it? I dont buy into the line that we do top secret stuff for the defence. The only top secret stuff is dragging the tax payers along and stealing tax money so a VERY FEW select people can play with big toys.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: all and no proof that we need the station. Give me proof that we need it. I want to know real examples not sell pitches. We DO NOT NEED to explore anything. So any and EVERY example linked to that specific perpus is a waste of my time. Advancments..? realy, that is weak. If we made anything in the US anymore this might be an argument. But it aint, we could reverse ingineeer ANYTHING we want. China has done it for ever. NASA is on my hit list anyway. They are another waste of money. All they have been up to is trying to find life out there. WE DONT HAVE THE MONEY. let China "find live out there" would we be any better off if we found it or they find it? Pride, pride in America? This is no argument either. America has no pride in America. Look at our leaders. We HATE to even talk about what they do and look at the heat generated bringing up the topic. Cut NASA, sell the space station and that is only a little tiny piece of what we NEED to do,.. just a part of the start. NASA would help EACH and EVERY American by being desolved. Tel me how they help any other way.

You are correct in saying that we do not NEED explore/have a space program. In the same way, we don't NEED cars. Life went on just fine without it. However, due to the research and development put in to cars, we are able to do things that weren't previously possible.
Personally, I believe that the ISS does provide us with valuable information and research and therefore should not be scrapped. In fact, it would be even more pointless now that it is actually complete and ready to be used at full capacity. Scrapping it would be like building up a really nice Fiero, then sending it to the crusher as soon as its done just because one didn't want to pay for the maintenance.
And last I checked, the SETI project was privately run, not by NASA

As far as reverse-engineering goes, That only would work if the US could obtain said technology. For example, if China was the only country in the world with Nukes, and we wanted to reverse-engineer one of our own, do you think they would sell us one? I am guessing if it is something that gives any country (wether that be the US, China, Russia, ect) an advantage over the rest, then they are not going to be too willing to part with that.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: This is like Japan saying they do reasearch on whales. Let me see it. Where is it? I dont buy into the line that we do top secret stuff for the defence. The only top secret stuff is dragging the tax payers along and stealing tax money so a VERY FEW select people can play with big toys.

Do a Google for "International Space Station" and "Research Summary"..

Here's a sample:
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/co...p/TP-2006-213146.pdf

You say "where is it?".

It's mostly available on line through documents like the one that I singled out (above).

------------------

88 GT (5-speed)

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Do a Google for "International Space Station" and "Research Summary".. Here's a sample: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/co...p/TP-2006-213146.pdf You say "where is it?". It's mostly available on line through documents like the one that I singled out (above).

OK, so I could spend days on that looking for usefull research, or you could just tell me what usefull research is being done to make people like me agree to pay for the program.
Where is the return on our investment and what is NASA or the space station spending money on NOW or in the FUTURE to keep inverstors (the tax payers) from pulling our investments and apply them to more usefull more profitable programs?

NASA better pray to God that people like me do not controle the Govt wallet. I would ax them in a heart beat with such little proof (contex of the proof in this thread) that we "need" them.
Why not let the Govt sell off the NASA to privat investors and let them controle it and take the risk or loss? The tax payers are on the hook for a program that has no resposability to show how the money is spent. We just have to take there word for it that NASA is "usefull" and "needed". If it is so usefull why is it not self sastaining and self reliant?

And, what would you suggest the "saved" money be used for?

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: any and EVERY example linked to that specific perpus is a waste of my time.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Tel me how they help any other way.

Why? You've already decided anything someone could possibly say is a waste of your time.

The up side is with the $19 Billion saved, we also end government research into climate change, so I'm good with that.
It'll end ongoing EPA air pollution studies, so that's cool.

And that brings our annual deficit down from $1.6 Trillion to $1.581 Trillion.
So close. If we could just cancel NASA 83 more times, we'd *almost* save enough to cover the 2011 deficit.
I guess we just have to find 83 more agencies to eliminate - to get us through THIS year.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: If it is so usefull why is it not self sastaining and self reliant?

I want to know why our Interstate Highway system isn't self sustaining and self reliant? We got along just fine without it, but goverment keeps pouring money into the program to just pour concrete on the ground. What a waste.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: or we could outsource the space program to the Phillipines...

We are effectively outsourcing it to the Russians. See how that's working out for us...

It's too big and returns are too far into the future to privatize it either.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I want to know why our Interstate Highway system isn't self sustaining and self reliant? We got along just fine without it, but goverment keeps pouring money into the program to just pour concrete on the ground. What a waste.

Theoretically, at least, the Interstate Highway System sustains itself from the revenues generated by taxes on gasoline.

I think they should toll all interstates as well as all metro loops with an interstate connection--and toll them high enough to keep the riffraff off of them.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I want to know why our Interstate Highway system isn't self sustaining and self reliant? We got along just fine without it, but goverment keeps pouring money into the program to just pour concrete on the ground. What a waste.

Well, when I can start using the Space Station for free, we can talk about putting tolls on all highways

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Well, when I can start using the Space Station for free, we can talk about putting tolls on all highways

I have no doubt that if you knocked on their door/hatch, they'd let you in and you'd be allowed to spend the night, kind of like a bed a breakfast. But, getting there is a bit expensive.

------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I have no doubt that if you knocked on their door/hatch, they'd let you in and you'd be allowed to spend the night, kind of like a bed a breakfast. But, getting there is a biit expensive.

Sounds like we need amtrak for space .... ha ha

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: ... Let me ask, why send people to Mars? What will be gained, and at what expense? ...

To do what every good species does: survive. If we don't survive we, as a species, will perish. The whole purpose of life is to create more life. The dinosaurs perished because they couldn't survive. We have the technology to expand our reach into the vastness of the universe, and you want it cancelled so you can have more beer and popcorn.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Your opinion is set, that is plain, so all you're asking others to do is waste time dealing with you. What's the point? You already know all you *want* to know on the subject, and won't learn one iota more. Why should the rest of us jump through your pointless hoops like trained dogs?

Yes my mind is made up that wastefull Govt spending NEEDS to be cut. I do beleive that the right argument for the program can change my mind, or at least bring me to a more sympathetic opinion. So far I nave not seen a single argument for the need of the program. Just arguments thet people want the program.

I have in no way shape or form called ANYONE who supports NASA dogs. AND I, no matter how entrenched I sound am open to REAL need for the program. I am NOT sympathetic to arguments thet we should keep ANY program running just because the % of the cost or federal budget% is "low". No need = scraped program.

The first place to go on line for information about the ISS (International Space Station):
http://www.nasa.gov/mission...tion/main/index.html

I have copied and pasted (below) a summary of the research that has gone forward on the ISS.

So--has it been worth what it has cost to date, and how much will finally be spent on it?

I guess each of us can only answer that question for themselves--but first, you have to have some data:


Biology and Biotechnology

In microgravity, controls on the directionality and geometry of cell and tissue growth can be dramatically different to those on Earth. Various experiments have used the culture of cells, tissues and small organisms on orbit as a tool to increase our understanding of biological processes in microgravity.


Earth and Space Science

The presence of the space station in low-Earth orbit provides a unique vantage point for collecting Earth and space science data. From an average altitude of about 400 km, details in such features as glaciers, agricultural fields, cities, and coral reefs taken from the ISS can be layered with other sources of data, such as orbiting satellites, to compile the most comprehensive information available.


Human Research

The space station is being used to study the risks to human health that are inherent in space exploration. Focal research questions address the mechanisms of the risks and develop test countermeasures to reduce these risks. Research on space station addresses the major risks to human health from residence in a long-duration microgravity environment. Results from this research are key enablers for future long-duration missions beyond low Earth orbit.


Physical Sciences

The space station provides the only place to study long-term physical effects in the absence of gravity. This unique microgravity environment allows different physical properties to dominate systems, and these have been harnessed for a wide variety of physical sciences.


Technology

Studies on the space station can test a variety of technologies, systems, and materials that will be needed for future long-duration exploration missions.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: No need = scraped program.

What meets your definition of "need?"

Do public schools need sports, music, or art programs?
Like I mentioned earlier, the science they do isn't going to end up on store shelves this year. Theoretical science at the cutting edge of human knowledge takes time to develop into mainstream uses.
Things like radiant barrier and thermal blankets came from the Apollo program, but you didn't get them in 1969.

There isn't a pre-made market for new discoveries. At some point you have to decide if science and knowledge are worthwhile endeavors to expand mankind's knowledge and find new ways of doing things without necessarily knowing what those new discoveries are going to be.

There is a lot of materials science and medical research going on at the ISS. Will it cure cancer? AIDS? Make cars safer in a crash? Create a new lightweight composite that can make vehicles more lightweight, safer and stronger? There's no reliable way to predict that, but you can look at the posted sources to see the types of experiments they're doing.

There's also the inspiration of each generation of children. Is that enough by itself? Most people probably don't think so, but it is a tangible benefit.

If you look for reasons it's worthwhile you'll find them.
If you look for reasons it isn't, you'll find those too.

If cancelling NASA would do anything to help the budget problems, I'd say shut it all down, but it won't. The amount is so small compared to the rest of the federal budget the extra money would make little difference. I do think NASA as well as ALL other departments need to be scaled back. Cancelling Shuttle while spending more money than we spent to fly Shuttle seems like a loss on two fronts. If you're going to cancel the program, it should at least generate some savings.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: To do what every good species does: survive. If we don't survive we, as a species, will perish. The whole purpose of life is to create more life. The dinosaurs perished because they couldn't survive. We have the technology to expand our reach into the vastness of the universe, and you want it cancelled so you can have more beer and popcorn.

Until we can figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light, or separate our body from out consciousness, we will never populate another planet. I can tell you that the ISS isn't going to solve either one of these problems, as the scientists working on this are not in space, but on the ground.

Beer and popcorn? maybe for you, I will pass. I would rather spend my time on this earth enjoying what nature offers, not thinking about how to get off the planet

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Until we can figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light, or separate our body from out consciousness, we will never populate another planet. I can tell you that the ISS isn't going to solve either one of these problems, as the scientists working on this are not in space, but on the ground. Beer and popcorn? maybe for you, I will pass. I would rather spend my time on this earth enjoying what nature offers, not thinking about how to get off the planet

going faster than sound is tough enough in the atmosphere. but - I do agree with the reality of we aint getting nowhere until we get some speed. the magneto plasma rocket engine is a great start for within our solar system.

but, feel free to enjoy the Earth "as-is". I do. doesnt mean you need to "poo-poo" those working on the future.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Until we can figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light, or separate our body from out consciousness, we will never populate another planet. I can tell you that the ISS isn't going to solve either one of these problems, as the scientists working on this are not in space, but on the ground. Beer and popcorn? maybe for you, I will pass. I would rather spend my time on this earth enjoying what nature offers, not thinking about how to get off the planet

But could you not say that by studying other planets and the universe may help us understand our own planet and as a result help fix all the screw ups we did to it? Saying that we can do that at 'home' is not keeping an open mind and you can only accomplish things (experiments) here and not see what the results would be in a zero gravity environment.

The whole point of research is trying different methods to solve a problem and if being able try it in a zero gravity may give results, then there is benefit. You can’t say that it is a waste as you have no idea what the results will be until you try them. If we knew the answers and the results then there is NO need for ANY kind of research period.

If you worked in a research environment you would see that many different things can skew the results of an experiment – even a change in humidity from 43% to 45% can drastically alter some experiments (and that is just one factor), never mind what zero gravity may do.

The BIGGEST money suck in the US is the military; you (and us) need to pull out of these other countries and protect our own borders and spend the money internally. Once our problems are being dealt with, then we can help the rest of the world. That or go in there with all guns blazing and level the place, nothing left, no problems.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: But could you not say that by studying other planets and the universe may help us understand our own planet and as a result help fix all the screw ups we did to it? Saying that we can do that at 'home' is not keeping an open mind and you can only accomplish things (experiments) here and not see what the results would be in a zero gravity environment. The whole point of research is trying different methods to solve a problem and if being able try it in a zero gravity may give results, then there is benefit. You can’t say that it is a waste as you have no idea what the results will be until you try them. If we knew the answers and the results then there is NO need for ANY kind of research period. If you worked in a research environment you would see that many different things can skew the results of an experiment – even a change in humidity from 43% to 45% can drastically alter some experiments (and that is just one factor), never mind what zero gravity may do. The BIGGEST money suck in the US is the military; you (and us) need to pull out of these other countries and protect our own borders and spend the money internally. Once our problems are being dealt with, then we can help the rest of the world. That or go in there with all guns blazing and level the place, nothing left, no problems.

I did work in a research lab while getting my BS degree, I also worked at Dow Chemical within the Environment, Health and Safety department, were toxicology studies were conducted and written. I understand research and I understand the ROI. How much does it cost to run the entire ISS? How much would it cost to shoot up something 1/4 the size, with a limited life span (no major replacements because it is keep up longer)? How much of the ISS reports are for PR? Why is zero gravity the answer to any question related to the ISS? Is this all it can do? Seems like a lot of money to just reproduce zero gravity.

I understand the need for research and such, but basically, if the US doesn't have a way to get to the ISS, without help from another country, then we have given up on it already... why keep funding something where we need to ask permission to get there? Sort of like owning a home surrounded by someone else's property

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: I did work in a research lab while getting my BS degree, I also worked at Dow Chemical within the Environment, Health and Safety department, were toxicology studies were conducted and written. I understand research and I understand the ROI. How much does it cost to run the entire ISS? How much would it cost to shoot up something 1/4 the size, with a limited life span (no major replacements because it is keep up longer)? How much of the ISS reports are for PR? Why is zero gravity the answer to any question related to the ISS? Is this all it can do? Seems like a lot of money to just reproduce zero gravity. I understand the need for research and such, but basically, if the US doesn't have a way to get to the ISS, without help from another country, then we have given up on it already... why keep funding something where we need to ask permission to get there? Sort of like owning a home surrounded by someone else's property

that does make me wonder how much of the ISS is being funded by the US, and how much "by others"?
the "I" is ISS does imply others are putting $$$ in as well. But, I do beleive that NASA is the core administrator. Should we let that go? hand admin over to, say, China? They do hold all the worlds $$$ now, it seems......may as well hand them the future too.....

We can sell it to them

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Why is zero gravity the answer to any question related to the ISS? Is this all it can do? Seems like a lot of money to just reproduce zero gravity.

When you figure out a way to nullify or shield from gravity, you let us know.