DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
It's not pathetic at all, especially if one takes time to consider the extra value of additional toppings, such as mushrooms and olives.
Neil Armstrong's Warning
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
It's not pathetic at all, especially if one takes time to consider the extra value of additional toppings, such as mushrooms and olives.
bflynn
Final Approach
Not using? You mean there are power plants producing power that aren't hooked to the power grid?
fgcason
En-Route
What precisely is the value of additional toppings? $0.10? $3.84? $56,943.92? And precisely how do you measure the fiscal value and return on investment of taste? Think about it...
As my aunt who was a caterer use to say "truly good food doesn't have to have three times it's weight of condiments put on top to hide the taste of the base food."
Ah, let's just quit playing around. Just shut nasa down. Shut down scientific research as well. Shut down anything and everything that is not a fiscal loss. It's all about money and return on investment. There is no way long term experiments or research of any kind can show at least a 300% return on fiscal investment during it's first fiscal quarter. Besides, we already have everything we could possibly need in life with the established financial system. Back to your computers peasants and start typing so the profits will grow... It's really about the Thenardier's of the world anyway...
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
There will not be consensus...
Some folks see the space program as a huge waste of money and post those sentiments using their Tapatalk, PC, Ipad, or whatever - which technology traces directly from the race to the Moon and the need for smaller computing machines...
Later in the day they will visit a friend in the ICU which exists primarily because of the space program and the need to remotely determine if an astronaut is alive or not...
Solar cell technology was driven by the need for making power in space...
The list of devices we consider indispensable is so voluminous I can't even begin... Do a search on it... A good article starts here:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/tech-spinoffs-from-space-programs-110411.html
And then, there are others that see our huge welfare society as the giant black hole sucking us down...
Currently (2011 statistics) 49% of the population (160 million) receives some form of benefit payment from the government...
Coincidentally 49% of adults of working age pay no Federal Income taxes...
(these two sets overlap but are not necessarily congruent)
That ONLY 50% of the working adults in this country financially support our society is not sustainable... It is not sustainable statistically... It is not sustainable as a social structure... It is not sustainable as a business model... And it is not sustainable ethically (regardless of your religious beliefs, or lack thereof)
20% of those paying taxes provide 70% of the governments annual income... Yet the current administration demonizes those people, calling them pejorative names such as 'rich', demonizing them, and accusing them of being cheats and criminals...
This is not sustainable either...
The analogue of that would be a business telling the 20% of it's customers who produce 70% of it's cash flow to go away because they are bad people..
Some folks see the space program as a huge waste of money and post those sentiments using their Tapatalk, PC, Ipad, or whatever - which technology traces directly from the race to the Moon and the need for smaller computing machines...
Later in the day they will visit a friend in the ICU which exists primarily because of the space program and the need to remotely determine if an astronaut is alive or not...
Solar cell technology was driven by the need for making power in space...
The list of devices we consider indispensable is so voluminous I can't even begin... Do a search on it... A good article starts here:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/tech-spinoffs-from-space-programs-110411.html
And then, there are others that see our huge welfare society as the giant black hole sucking us down...
Currently (2011 statistics) 49% of the population (160 million) receives some form of benefit payment from the government...
Coincidentally 49% of adults of working age pay no Federal Income taxes...
(these two sets overlap but are not necessarily congruent)
That ONLY 50% of the working adults in this country financially support our society is not sustainable... It is not sustainable statistically... It is not sustainable as a social structure... It is not sustainable as a business model... And it is not sustainable ethically (regardless of your religious beliefs, or lack thereof)
20% of those paying taxes provide 70% of the governments annual income... Yet the current administration demonizes those people, calling them pejorative names such as 'rich', demonizing them, and accusing them of being cheats and criminals...
This is not sustainable either...
The analogue of that would be a business telling the 20% of it's customers who produce 70% of it's cash flow to go away because they are bad people..
Mafoo
Cleared for Takeoff
I agree with the rest of your post to, but I am going to comment on this one:
I think the biggest problem we face in the immediate future, is spending. Right now, we think we can make any policy we want, and the spend any way we like.
I say shut it down. Not because it's not valuable. But because we as a people were not responsable enough to do the rights things elsewhere, thus we cant afford it. Choices have consequences. We have chosen to waste away our wealth and power, so we don't get to do the things wealthy powerful countries get to do.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,971
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
meh - that is the same stuff said in the 60's and 70's about the space program.
fgcason
En-Route
I remember all the shut down nasa and put that money to good use fixing problems here on earth stuff going on...and those comments are still going on.
If that money was suddenly available, nothing would change. It would be the same crap going on and nothing would improve. Even if every penny of nasa's money was actually used to help things, it's a drop of water in a major ocean kind of thing and won't make a bit of difference. The only difference would be no flight above the atmosphere, a small museum somewhere on the current nasa property and a whole section of prime developer real estate opened up for cookie cutter condo's, hotels and shopping malls. Same horse poop, no inspiration.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
I agree with this but the size of our deficit, and debt problems are orders of magnitude large than in the 60's.
We certainly have screwed up priorities, and a population that just wants more free stuff, and have lost the vision of exploration, adventure, and expanding the universe for mankind.
Mafoo
Cleared for Takeoff
Sadly, you don't remember when the Romans did it, or your opinions might be different.
Every democracy has failed for the same reason. Suicide due to self distrusting there economy.
If it's been proven many times that it's the only way we can fail, wouldn't it makes sense to do the things we need to do, to prevent it from happening?
Last edited:
Mafoo
Cleared for Takeoff
They have not lost the vision. They think they can have both.
The current generation does not think spending money in one place, has any impact on how much money we can spend in another place.
So far, our government has proved them right, with dire consequences to come in the future.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,971
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
To go into why our society is declining and what can be done about it would quickly bring this thread into the SZ.
But for sure and for certain, the funding for space exploration isn't what will take this country down.
Mafoo
Cleared for Takeoff
Agreed. However choices without consequences will.
I am sure saying "Sorry, we are broke, can't do that anymore" will do a lot more good for the millions 8-12 year olds who wants to be an Astronaut when he grows up, by forcing them to ask there parents why we can't do that anymore, then any space programe will.
Mafoo
Cleared for Takeoff
Isn't that what an Alcoholic says about his next drink?
Power plants sitting idle tied to the dock with no mission as the Navy generates reports about what to do with a trillion dollars of fueled hardware it no longer wants. Yes, those power plants. They could be producing energy and selling it to pay into the budget rather than suck from it.
Gmaper
Pre-takeoff checklist
One group of politicians say that we must increase defense spending, not cut it. Perhaps left unsaid is them knowing of some kind of advance in military weapons that is going to be a future savior of our country? Maybe they know about new rocket technology to be developed for weapons delivery that could also be used for interplanetary exploration? Or maybe they just think that more government spending is the true solution to our economic woes. 
One group of politicians say that we must increase defense spending, not cut it. Perhaps left unsaid is them knowing of some kind of advance in military weapons that is going to be a future savior of our country? Maybe they know about new rocket technology to be developed for weapons delivery that could also be used for interplanetary exploration? Or maybe they just think that more government spending is the true solution to our economic woes.
The last, it is the economic principle that we have been operating under since WWII. Read/listen to Eisenhower's farewell address, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.
Gmaper
Pre-takeoff checklist
Thanks, Henning, I will try to find that.
Thinking about Eisenhower reminds me that during his administration the top tax bracket was 91% and the tax code even allowed we young adults to deduct the dreaded credit card interest on our tax returns. He was also the last Republican to have a balanced budget.
"Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001."
The above quote is a bit simplistic because there are many factors that come into play. The President is not the only player in the game.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I ancient cultures, instead of fighting large battles each army would send out a champion. The two champions would have it out, and whichever won would determine who won the day.
Neil Armstrong was our champion, and I doubt we could have had better. He didn't fight an opponent, but faced grave danger blazing a trail of exploration to fight a battle in our Cold War with the Russians, a war we won so completely our government couldn't even tell us.
With that war won, the Space program lost its raison d'être, and has since faltered in levels of funding and recognition. The amazing thing is in it's metaphorical and financial hinterland, NASA did breathtaking science, sending probes to other planets and even hefting the first man-made object beyond the solar system.
The only sad part of all this is the careers in science and engineering have also gone into the same phantom zone. Without them, we have failed to train the world's best technocrats, and import many instead. That, and not the lack of a space program, could spell the death knell of our superpower status. Superpowers import neither high technology nor the folks who make it.
Neil Armstrong was our champion, and I doubt we could have had better. He didn't fight an opponent, but faced grave danger blazing a trail of exploration to fight a battle in our Cold War with the Russians, a war we won so completely our government couldn't even tell us.
With that war won, the Space program lost its raison d'être, and has since faltered in levels of funding and recognition. The amazing thing is in it's metaphorical and financial hinterland, NASA did breathtaking science, sending probes to other planets and even hefting the first man-made object beyond the solar system.
The only sad part of all this is the careers in science and engineering have also gone into the same phantom zone. Without them, we have failed to train the world's best technocrats, and import many instead. That, and not the lack of a space program, could spell the death knell of our superpower status. Superpowers import neither high technology nor the folks who make it.
denverpilot
Tied Down
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Could we reinstate this, to the death, for elections?
It would be vastly more entertaining than the political commercials. In a way, we have this in the televised debates. That said, armed combat would still be more entertaining.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,971
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
Actually, since 1970, there was only one year (2000) when there was an on-budget surplus. So, yeah, your statement above is simplistic.
As for the technology I agree, as for the people who make it, I do not completely, it depends on if they are imported as immigrants or Ex-Pats. With Ex-Pats I agree with your point, but without immigrants our space program would not have been what it was. The Space Race was literally a "Our German scientists are better than your German scientists" race. The best minds in the Manhattan project were immigrants as well, and if it had not been one immigrants signature on the bottom of the letter of warning to Roosevelt, the program may never have happened.
One of the funniest statements Von Braun made was in regards to the lack of an American rocket program when Godard was his inspiration. "American innovation" has always been built by direct immigrants from all the way back.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
True, von Braun was German, though van Allen was American, as was Goddard. The moonshots were primarily American-trained personnel.
Now we import folks who are educated overseas. Supply of them dries up and we lack technical expertise. Not a good position to be in for a superpower.
Now we import folks who are educated overseas. Supply of them dries up and we lack technical expertise. Not a good position to be in for a superpower.
The key to being a superpower is not giving away all your developments to build other economies. The problem with being a superpower is that you are targeted by those who are not but are seeking equal status. This is the primary problem with having disparent societies regardless the scale. This view of 'us and them' that is inherent in human nature is the key point of strife in humanity. Until that is rectified humanity everywhere will suffer.
We are in a process of that rectification, but it is only economic parity that we are seeking in order to grow consumerism, this is because the top tier of business learned long ago that enemies amongst their piers is counter productive to amassing their fortunes. Prime example being Armand Hammer who was doing business with the Soviet Union all through the Cold War. What is not being done is social integration because that is not in the best interest of business, in fact the opposite is.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ayn Rand got it right.
I watched "2001 - A Space Odyssey" back in 1969, or maybe 1970. They had Pan-Am doing space shuttle flights in that movie. I guess not that many people's vision get fulfilled. At least not Armstrong's, Kubrick's or Bradbury's, anyway. Or Juan Trippe's, either, since that flagship airline ended up in bankruptcy court.
If I recall correctly, Ms. Rand relied on Social Security and Medicare in her golden years, and died penniless.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Case made and closed.
"Golden years golden shmears....." and relying on the gub'mnt to keep you going.....
"Golden years golden shmears....." and relying on the gub'mnt to keep you going.....
Alternatively, one can argue quite effectively that the Apollo program was just another bloated government income redistribution plan. Some of the biggest recipients of government largesse in that program were North American/Rockwell, McDonnell and Grumman, none of which exist today.
Yet there are certain hardliners that insist we embark upon a moon landing redux, lest the Chinese land there 40-odd years after we did...
What part of, "Rational Self-Interest" took care of Ms. Rand in the latter part of her life?
Was it the general populus that elected Senators and Congressmen that crafted Social Security and Medicare years ago?
How far back do we rewind the Wayback Machine? If it weren't for latter 19th Century and early 20th Century immigration policy, many of us big swinging important folks wouldn't even be here in the first place, would we?
Datadriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Datadriver
Well if it is pizza or NASA I gotta go with pizza
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Two thoughts on that.
1. Check to see who was running Congress in those years. They are the ones who ultimately vote to balance the budget, or not.
2. What sort of smoke & mirrors was used in 1969 to come up with a SURPLUS? We were at the height of the Vietnam War, and the height of the Apollo Program -- not to mention the start of LBJ's "Great Society"?
denverpilot
Tied Down
bflynn
Final Approach
Yeah....
I have to presume that you mean naval power plants. Do you have actual experience with those plants or do you just see the number and not the power output of them?
I see the difference between something positive vs everything negative. How is steam different from a Naval power plant than land based, besides the fact that it's intrinsically safe from attack and natural disaster?
bflynn
Final Approach
???
Try rephrasing the question because I'm unable to parse this. There are three exception conditions which are not exclusive.
Naval and Land based plants are both steam plant. So the only possible answer I can give relates to the difference between land and naval based plants.
The answer is one of degrees. Naval nuclear plants are smaller, mobile and much, much less powerful. An aircraft carrier, running multiple plants can generate close to 200 MW, about 1/5 the power of a small civilian plant. The largest civilian plants are measured in gigawats. New York City uses about 5 gigawatts.
There are also only about 100 naval reactors (there were 99 in 2008) and they're not idle. If we assume they are each as powerful as a carrier's (they aren't), then we could calculate 100 x 100 or 10,000 megawatts / 10 gigawatts as the top output of all naval nuclear reactors. Slighly more than the 8.21 gigawatts generated by the largest civilian plant.
That's IF we weren't using these power plants to run ships necessary for ensuring free sea lanes.
So - I'm again confused by what you're suggesting about nuclear plants running idle.
If that's not what you were asking about, try rephrasing again.