NASA to go back to the Moon - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 08:30:24 pm
content: Presidential Space Policy Directs NASA to Return Humans to MoonA draft copy of the order declares that“the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization,followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 09:23:11 pm
content: I think he should lead the first mission, after all he's got a giant IQ and the best brain.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 09:33:36 pm
content: Finally someone realized that we dont need to go to as far as Mars, if we want to build an extra-terrestrial colony. I mean it is really hard to miss, and you see it every day.Yes, we need moon colony. It has scientific and economical importance. It is much easier to reach than Mars.Though, I loved, how he described that the Americans had space supremacy. After doing everything second after the Russians, except the one thing.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 09:45:26 pm
content: What about finding a cure for cancer first !? Idiots !

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 09:57:25 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 09:45:26 pmWhy not both?Besides, a cure for cancer doesn't exist. It's a gradual improvement of our understanding of the plethora of afflictions grouped together as cancer at best. And we're charging ahead with that.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:07:22 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 09:45:26 pmAstronauts cant cure cancer. Nor do rockets.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:09:36 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 11, 2017, 10:07:22 pmBut the money spent on rockets would !Edit: OK, I'm not against progress but traveling to lifeless Moon and Mars is the last thing that we need right now.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:39:23 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 10:09:36 pmI disagree. We need the eyes of humanity on the horizon and the promise of a shared goal more than ever. Looking outward, rather than inward is the best thing we can do.

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:43:38 pm
content: Has NASA been deemed an illegal alien and evicted by Trump?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:46:34 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 11, 2017, 09:33:36 pmI recon the moon's gravity will cause problems if people stay too long. Mars' gravity is more than double compared to the moon so probably better for a long term stay. Also Mars may have more resources like water which could help to create oxygen and/or grow food. Also IMHO Mars is way more interesting to explore than the moon because it may have had life for a period in time. Who knows what is buried under the sand?

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:48:49 pm
content: What does he mean by saying "the return of humans to the moon"? Everybody knows that no man has ever stepped on the moon yet!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 10:50:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 11, 2017, 10:46:34 pmMars is also a lot less hostile than the Moon in other areas. Radiation, abrasion and pressure, to name a few.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 11:17:11 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 10:09:36 pmSurely you've noticed by now that what Trump says means far less than the fact it keep Trump in the news.This is only real news if Trump and Congress support giving NASA a budget sufficient to do it. Last I heard, his budget proposals involved cuts to most science programs, including NASA.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 11:32:47 pm
content: (Waiting for the thread to become Trump hate diarrhea)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 11:47:12 pm
content: I have mixed thoughts on the matter. Going to the moon was definitely a huge achievement for humanity, but at this point we've already been there, we know what it looks like, we know there's nothing much there. The most hostile and unlivable areas on earth are still massively more inviting than the moon or Mars. These days I'm not fully sold on the benefit of manned exploration missions when we have the technology to send remotely operated rovers that are much cheaper and can spend longer on location because they don't have to worry about life support or a return trip.Some day it would be cool to be able to do Star Trek style long term space exploration but unless someone can figure out how to bend the laws of the universe it's going to take a very long time to get anywhere interesting. It's also going to take a very, very large ship with a crew of at least a few hundred people to keep things interesting. If you stick 10 people in a sealed tube and send them out on a years-long mission to someplace it's going to turn into chaos and drama within a few months.There is the thought of "saving" the human race from extinction by colonizing other planets but it's really not saving much. Even if we do colonize other places it's not going to help the population of earth in some kind of doomsday event, only a tiny fraction of the population could ever be carried off the planet.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 11:53:43 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on December 11, 2017, 11:17:11 pmThat is the real worry. With the decrease in tax revenue along with increased spending on the military and the wall, it sounds to me like resources will be diverted from NASA's current great work on unmanned probes, climate change, and studies in to how to cool the magma in the Yellowstone super volcano and replace it with a fairly useless manned return to the Moon.If he is talking about a genuine NASA budget increase, then maybe it is an interesting idea. I hate to think where the money will come from.He was going on about how this was important for America's security. What is that about? I hope he is not considering in turning NASA from a peaceful scientific organisation into a secretive branch of the military. You never know with Trump.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2017, 11:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 11, 2017, 10:46:34 pmI've read a theory, that human body handles low gravity a lot better than no gravity. We already had guys in space for a year (Scott Kelly). The lunar colony could be manned with a rotation of crew, for example a 3 month rotation. The flight is like 3 days to there, so it is almost the same as Australia. Unlike Mars. If anything goes wrong there, it is game over for them. To the moon, we can pretty much just launch a bunch of batteries or MRE or a ride back home.Unlike Earth and Mars, asteroids dont burn up in the atmosphere of the moon, so we could analize stuff coming from all of space, and everything is just a walking distance from there. There is plenty of stuff to do there. Also, they claim that there is enough hydrogen and oxigen on the moon to mine it. The gateway to Mars may very well be the Moon.All these nonsense on TV of "people turning crazy" is just for the show. People work on oil drilling platforms and antartica, and they are doing just fine. Just have enough alcohol, and people can handle this.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:00:55 am
content: Quote from: amspire on December 11, 2017, 11:53:43 pmI try not to engage in political discussions, but I think one of the only things you can count on about Trump is that he will do and say whatever is in his own best interest. He will make stuff up and say whatever people want to hear and whatever riles up his supporters. In one sense it's hard to blame him, I mean it seems to work. He's a textbook narcissist and a large number of people interpret his belligerence as strength.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:50:49 am
content: It's also possible that someone informed him about China's successes and plans in space stations and moon exploration. It's even possible China may partner with Russia on its moon program. So it's entirely possible this now falls under his America First agenda.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_programhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:58:20 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 11, 2017, 11:57:18 pmSorry but that is no nonsense at all. People working in remote areas are carefully selected and screened. Back in the old days lots of workers working at whale processing plants killed themselves because they couldn't handle being in a place with so little people. I've seen a documentary about the whale industry on TV and that was one of the topics they covered.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:25:25 am
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 09:45:26 pmAnd people are starving in Africa, why you don't you go and donate all your wealth to them.If some unsolved problem exists, it does not mean that everything else must be abandoned and progress must stop.

author: M4trix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:29:39 am
content: Quote from: wraper on December 12, 2017, 01:25:25 am

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:37:04 am
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 12, 2017, 01:29:39 amBesides, regardless of how much money you will throw at relatively narrow problem as cancer research, it's not very likely that ultimate cure will be found. But as technology develops overall, it could happen eventually. Say if you had thrown trillion dollars at smartphone research 40 years ago, it's unlikely you would get any meaningful result out of that.

author: lundmar
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:56:25 am
content: Oh America. How the mighty have fallen. Sad.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:59:13 am
content: Quote from: lundmar on December 12, 2017, 01:56:25 amYay a "let's bash another member's country" thread. Lovely.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:03:41 am
content: They should build a wall prototype on the moon, then fly Trump so he can personally see it. And leave him there.Seriously though I think this is good news, though I guess it's kind of a touchy subject when you consider where else the money can go. Hopefully they don't just send people there for fun but can be given the chance to actually lay out a proper scientific mission such as things they want to study. It's not just the surface, but the journey. There is more tech available now than there was last time so more sensory data can be obtained. Radiation, that kind of stuff.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:13:01 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 12, 2017, 02:03:41 amAt the risk of turning this into a political discussion, a few months of "defense" is as expensive as the entire NASA budget ever. It's not exactly going to make a relevant difference going to the Moon again.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:19:07 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 02:13:01 amThat's the gigantic elephant in the room when it comes to any debate involving budget. I support our military and I think it's an important thing to have, but the scale of the spending is absurd. We don't need to be spending trillions of dollars getting involved in wars all over the world, we know we're capable of ramping up in a hurry when needed, we proved that in WWII. Unfortunately we never really ramped back down.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:22:03 am
content: Signing intent documents is good publicity, but it doesn't mean a lot. We have seen that before. I'll believe they are serious when then sign up for some serious funding.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:29:06 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 02:13:01 amThere is something seriously wrong with this world.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 am
content: First of all, if humanity is to survive, we need locational diversity. So sayeth Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking (among others) although for different reasons. Think about why we don't see dinosaurs roaming around!The moon doesn't make the cut in this regard. If the earth gets hammered, perhaps the moon orbit is upset. The moon just happens to be a strategic outpost. Mars is a better location in terms of diversity. Of course, so is any other habitable planet.The space program spun off a lot of innovations. The smartest people in the world were working on that program. Microelectronics was one, advances in medicine another.https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/nasa-breakthroughs-in-medicine.htmDon't minimize July 20, 1969. This was the first of 6 moon landings (12 astronauts have walked on the moon) and no other country has ever come close to matching that achievement in nearly 50 years. Nobody has come close!The space program was good for small business. I worked in a small machine shop that did a lot of contract work for NASA. The shop was loaded with outstanding machinists and tool/die makers. I lived in San Diego when the aerospace industry tanked and these workers moved over to small job shops. I learned a lot in my early years just working around them.The space program also provided a lot of opportunities for engineers. That's good because engineering became the program of choice after Sputnik was launched. The very next day, the entire educational system in the US kicked it into high gear. That's why the boomers are touted as the best educated and most productive generation the world has ever seen. Alas, we're pretty much out of the picture (at least those of us on the leading edge) so the next generations better pick up the pace!https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/as-the-boomers-head-for-the-barn/There is some debate that the Millennials are better educated but I want a recount that includes only STEM graduates. Who cares how many people have majored in Ancient History?How can the US possibly justify the fact that we have to hitchhike to our own space station? That's absurd!I look forward to a rejuvenated NASA.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:47:37 am
content: It's not anyone's space station. It's in the name. That Cold War approach will only slow things down. We, humans, go to space.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 03:14:36 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 02:47:37 amWho put up the bulk of the money? BTW, I don't know the answer to that, it's hard to find out due to the way NASA accounted for Space Shuttle operations. The other partners have made sizable contributions.Nevertheless, the ISS is about to reach its end of life in 2024. I suppose it could be extended, again, but it's getting dated. NASA just needs to firm up the deorbit operation. Somehow, disposal remains our problem.In my view, the Cold War approach is the only way to run the space program. There is no reason to export our technology to countries that will, sooner or later, be our enemies. Every agency for themselves!We got to the Moon by ourselves, we can get to Mars (or back to the Moon) without anybody's help. We just need the will to make it happen. Unfortunately, the will is gone and has been since the early '70s.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svgEven with the military buildup for Vietnam, NASA was getting a high percentage of the Federal budget. Now they get chump change.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 03:27:46 am
content: In that case, you'd better get used to other nations cooperating and surpassing any singular nation both budget and technology wise. Any nation could eventually become an enemy, but not making friends in the first place or even actively picking fights isn't helping.Going to Mars piecemeal, not working together will only increase risk and costs. Any developed nation could spend billions and get to Mars sooner or later. It hasn't happened because no one wants to carry the burden alone. Cooperation seems the sensible solution and has happened on many joint missions. NASA, ESA and JAXA do a lot together.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 03:43:58 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 02:47:37 amNames are names, not promises of inclusion. It's a political football like any other major multi-national project, with those that are involved and those that are excluded. Why do you think China's space program is independent. They're probably capable of sending spacecraft to the ISS right now (they're compatible with the Russian docking system) if politics allowed it. Which is more than the US can say at the moment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_International_Space_Station

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 04:44:41 am
content: QuoteActively trying to ramp down on our spending doesn't make an individual rich. It gets them assassinated. When you are the president of the US, you can feel free to try it. If it's more than lip service, you will find the bottom of a hole. Anyone wants to blame the president, Obama or Trump, democrat or republican, you are delusional to think our president can decide he wants to cut back on spending and anything like that would actually happen.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 07:24:17 am
content: What are the benefits to humanity in spending money of huge telescopes, manned space missions, and space probes? I frequently get asked this. Isn't the money better spent on direct human aid? Maybe, but maybe not.The missions to the moon advanced computers and material sciences extremely rapidly. We would not be conversing here on this forum without these advances.There is a huge and expensive telescope system near where I live here in Chile. ALMA. (http://www.almaobservatory.org) It cost 1.5 billion USD to build and needs around 60 million per year for operations. It is run in partnership with the EU, USA, Canada, Japan and other minor contributors. That means maybe 1 billion tax payers that helped pay for this. It cost each of them the price of one coffee to build it and the price of a stir stick for a coffee every year to keep it running. What do we get from this investment? How does it help humanity in any tangible way?Well the computer that combines the signals for the 66 radio telescopes does computations very similar to that needed for NMRI. The advances in the technology of this telescope can help improve machines that find a cancer in your body sooner, aid in diagnosing heart problems, and help with diagnosing many human health problems. ALMA can also help in understanding our solar system's future and what we might need to mitigate problems that occur from changing solar conditions, far ranging dangerous asteroids and other rocks, and many other unforeseen dangers. The data from ALMA is available to world for all to make their own discoveries, for free.That being said, I can't feel anything but cynicism against Trump for his action. it is just more grand standing on his part. Maybe it is being done in fear that the Chinese are starting to outpace the USA in many things. It is the new arms race perhaps.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 09:09:19 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 03:14:36 amSure, just send Werner Von Braun and his German colleagues back to Germany and delete all his knowledge from your space programs and we'll call it quits.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 09:10:23 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on December 12, 2017, 04:44:41 amA bit naïve isn't it?The US isn't participating in wars out of altruism. Sure the US was invited into WWII (courtesy of Hirohito) and ended up participating on many fronts, but it ended up costing the US money, human life, lost GDP, etc. If you add to it the costs of the George C. Marshall Plan for Europe (and its like in Asia) - the cost of the war was even higher - much higher. The only good that came out of it was the rebuilding of the economies.So the US spends money on trying to keep some sort of stability that the world can't slide into chaos. It isn't an act of Altruism (the genocides-de-jour that keep happening are proof - but they always happen in places that cannot slide the world into a WWIII) - it is sound financial responsibility.It funds the UN, which is deranged version of Babylon 5 if you will. But serves as a place for leaders to vent and lash out and beats war any day (as annoying as watching Khaminei and his Cabal of Shiite Zealots prancing about the NYC clubs trying to herd Antisemites to their cause - it is better than actual war with Iran). Keep your enemies closer...BTW - this isn't to state other countries should depend on the US. The purpose of all this activity and spend is to keep stability. If letting Russia keep Crimea is more stabilizing than battling it out with Putin - so it will be. Ukraine had to defend itself but couldn't. Never trust a super power to defend any one else's interest but its own.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 09:46:48 am
content: NASA was created purely for the purposes of political football - to beat the Soviets. They did that, and managed to do some great science along the way.The directives by this President and previous ones are meaningless, since there is no one left to beat. Worse, they give NASA flip-flopping objectives and no extra money. NASA should be left to do science, under direction of a science supervisory committee, space pioneering and exploitation should be left to commercial companies, and political objectives should be left out of the whole damned thing.Unfortunately with Trump and the anti-science retards in control, that won't happen. NASA will be a spittle covered dog chew for Trump and his cronies. Hopefully, they will still get to do some useful science with the money they are left with.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 10:45:23 am
content: "Think about why we don't see dinosaurs roaming around!"Because dinosaurs didn't have rockets.Therefore when the asteroid headed their way, there was not a lot they could do about it.Also, a fact pointed out elsewhere is that the money spent on 'global warming' would fund seven entire Apollo projects A YEAR.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 11:30:21 am
content: Yeah! And I imagine it will be sponsored by big companies, even by the Las Vegas casinos!Please someone explain me how to achieve that while lowering taxes!

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 11:46:16 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 amI am a bit curious as to what metric one is supposed to use to measure some achievement's distance to Apollo achievement. For starters, I will assume it is multidimensional.

author: Assafl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:09:53 pm
content: Exploration for Mar-a-Luna.BTW - How far does a golf ball travel on the moon? No need for woods is there...

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:32:14 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on December 12, 2017, 11:46:16 am11 people on the moon = close0 people on the moon = not closeHave not tried for over 30 years = not very close at all

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:33:23 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on December 12, 2017, 12:09:53 pmMight be an argument for using one on the 8th hole. It's a par 5 ... 23,785 yards.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:50:46 pm
content: It doesn't work like that any more. Cancer itself makes lots of companies money. Cancer drugs are the most profitable drugs in the world. As rates of cancer rise, they get to charge more and more people huge amounts of money for the 'privilege' of simply living. The way thingsare being set up now, it might soon be illegal (if it isn't already) for governments to fund a cure for it! Seriously.Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 10:09:36 pm

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 12:59:39 pm
content: Certain kinds of government spending are immune from procurement rules that will make the money get spent on huge international companies that pay their employees crap wages, which in countries that sign the GPA, will soon be taking over virtually all government spending, much to the demise of unions, public workers, etc. Think global privatization thats irreversible.So, when they talk about space or hypetrains, etc. this is really a way of signalling to your supporters that the government money will still be headed your way just by different means. They may have to get rid of all the public services and poor peoples stuff but you're still going to get the big bucks. The bigger and more high tech the more money can vanish into thin air without adult supervision, the better.Wars are of course the best wasters of money. national emergencies are #2, Anything with emergency in its name is likely to be the most successfully inefficient.Its also a clue that their supporters will have to be in only a few fields to get state money. (Military,space, secret state, secret secret state (to spy on the secret staters) surveillance, secret police, super duper secret tech, actual legislators at federal, state, local or quasi-public entities, and so on)Otherwise it will go up forcompetitivebidding and the expensive countrieswhose wages are alleged to be too high, won't (can't) get the work, cuz too willing to coddle the professional protectionists like most of us, and people everywhere with decent skills, so it will go "overseas" and if those workers want to bid down one anothers wages, they will, soon they will be making almost nothing.This is like a gathering of all the people who really own and control the world telling the sham governments and the worker bees who's boss.Who gets to take the honey and who gets the polluted sugar water.Or whatever, it goes to the countries that have the high skill workers most willing to work for almost nothing. (After all worker bees have to eat something).Most of those are administrative or various professions (including engineering) but really almost all jobs will get pulled into this net - Most jobs involving any tax money at allwill soon be done over the Internet. Its possible even grammar and high schools will be globalized and then as incomes fall still more, likely automated. (because tax receipts will sink because everybody will be unemployed). (Lots of people will also be homeless and dispossessed, they may lose the right to vote, its hard to say how or if their children will be able to access schooling) Countries that don't currently have public education wont be able to give people it (see the rules on domestic regulation, standstill, etc.) unless they (the WTO, our new masters) make some kind of rule allowing it, and all the countries would have to agree on it.They might if they can get their cut. Basically, in the WTO, government spending has become a tool of political aims, which the poor countries want the jobs from. After all, their wealthy folk say, we've (the US rich and the EU rich)have gotten even more filthy rich off them for 20 years, according to the statistics, now they want their cut. So, cough up your good jobs. The crap jobs come later.One of the best cartoons Ive ever seen on trade and related deals I saw yesterday on Richard Stallman's web site, its from 2004!

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:31:49 pm
content: Yes, of course, you are totaly right. But somebody would have to be blind to not see how the shift to contracting has occurred in order to hide the defense spending and channel more profits to MNCs. MNCs which also serve many other countries defense relatedprocurement. When a corporation has multipleinternationalcustomers, it is called a "multinational" one and at some pointthe dynamic shifts with the countries becoming lower on the totem pole than the corporations. That is what has happened. They just haven't told usso we go along our merry waysbarking up the wrong treeswhich suits them just fine, thank you.Many government jobs now go to government contractors, huge companies that still specialize in WTO (or OMC) GPA exempt areas and many of them do engineering.But be aware thateverything changed in 1995when the WTO (or OMC) winked into existence, it and other organizations like it are now the defacto world government. (See chart herehttp://www.levyinstitute.org/conferences/minsky2011/presentations/Wallach.pdf)and a lot of the most earth-changing and potentially controversial of those changes have been held up in negotiations such as the one (MC11) that ends today in Buenos Aires, every two years. The wealth of government procurement and the workers in a growing number ofservice sectorsare the subjects of a growing raft of international agreements are nowpawns in a huge game.Now even once clearly domestic based contracting jobs in quasi-governmental areas are coming under strong pressures to globalize when their parent comppany is a large government contractor for multiple governments.Also, money. Profit. Its all about profit. Buying (labor) low and selling that labor or the products of that cheap labor high. Minimizing your costs, maximizing the return of surplus value to your shareholders.San Diego is too expensive for companies that win bids to localize in because of the high cost of living and wages. Think somewhere in the Deep South if they are in the US at all. See"Rising powers' venue - shopping on international mobility"- Working Paper 20143, UNCCH (Swiss government think tank)Pressures are high on MNCs to spread the wealth around. The real growth they always say is elsewhere. Asia, in defense also Africa.-------------Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 amWe could easily end up like them, soon!--------Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 amBut, according to the people who run the planet, they were"professional protectionists", living in a bubble of high wages which were anachronistic and out of touch with the wages in the globalized rest of the world. Between you and I, it seems to me that as we move further into a global environmental and health catastrophe they want fewer scientists of all kinds, especially fewer scientists from non-wealthy backgrounds. So, the ladders are being pulled up.A good way to do it is to make sure that only the richest would be scientists can get an education. They have made giving away education quasi-illegal by means of trade agreements like the GATS and countries are under pressure from countries like the US to fall in line.So, people of means get a leg up and others get a leg down. Still if they can tough it out after getting their PhDs and publishing multiple papers and perpetual postdocs, family paying most of their expenses all the way, eventually getting a real job, they will be employed.Increasingly, only people of means can afford that so most Americans don't qualify, because that huge amount of wealth keeps becoming more and more concentrated.The people behind this,clearly want fewer scientists, not more!Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 amWe all do, which is why I am trying to explain whats been done.

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 01:50:19 pm
content: cdev, I agree. If the rest of the world knew what the UK was really like they'd be shocked.Most of the money spent 'on space' can be spent again, they don't really pack the rockets with money and send it off.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:22:50 pm
content: Some people view it as their calling in life, figuring out ever more creative and "efficient" (really inefficient) ways to snatch money from taxpayers and funnel it to MNCs or into their own coffers. The masters of this of course are the energy, banking, pharmacutical and many other industries and the current apex of their skills- the climax predator -ace money hijacking system is the new practice known asISDS. Countries can be turned into properties of MNCs like magic with ISDS. For example, look at the 50 billion Euro award in the Yukos case.Soon, these awards will stretch into the trillions of dollars.Investors have to be protected, after all. Nothing else is important. Make the planet starve. Shock therapy.Check out italaw.com if you want to see what I am talking about. But prepare to be alternately appalled and shocked at how much money is being wasted. Basically everything we think its government's jobs to do has become a means of making them pay MNCs millions or billions of dollars,Quote from: StillTrying on December 12, 2017, 01:50:19 pmThe problem with space is that its not a waste of money at all. Uncontrolled, random magical new knowledge is createdoutside of corporate controland of uncertain provenance. MNCs see that astantamount to expropriation- like a theft from them.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 02:56:19 pm
content: QuoteAh, help is on its wayhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/alien-asteroid-object-space-oumuamua-seti-breakthrough-listen-proof-extraterrestrial-a8105396.html

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 03:27:50 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on December 12, 2017, 02:19:07 amScaremongering the general public into believing there is an enemy at the gates is a very good tactic for politicians to keep the focus away from the real problems. It is no coincidence Trump is spending time on making North Korea the 'new enemy du jour' now IS has been (almost) dealth with. Where does an anti missile system go? Yes, into space!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 03:42:15 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on December 12, 2017, 09:09:19 amBe sure to also include any knowledge of supersonic aircraft and any re-entry made possible because of it. The Space Shuttle is an example that comes to mind. The first supersonic aircraft X-1 was basically the US version of the British Miles M.52 and would have never flown without the knowledge the US gained from the British.Obviously, international collaboration wasn't a strong suit of the US even back then. The US agreed to exchange supersonic research data, but reneged when it was the turn of the US to provide data to the Brits. It's not unlikely the US didn't have much to share. Instead, the US took all they learned and ran with it. Is that how this "without anybody's help" thing works, tweaking a design that's nearly complete and then claiming the achievement for yourself?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52#Prototypes

author: Back2Volts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 04:43:57 pm
content: According to theories of some close advisors, the moon exploration could be made with quite a low budget. Just turn on the lights and start filming againhttps://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/19/top-trump-adviser-roger-stone-moon-landing-video-was-hoax-filmed-new-jersey/213921

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 04:54:39 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on December 12, 2017, 01:31:49 pmI'm just wondering, if you could turn a buck-boost DC-DC converter discussion into a political debate about a some shadow government, with a wall of text. Because so far every other discussion with you seems to turn to that.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 05:50:19 pm
content: Quote from: Assafl on December 12, 2017, 12:09:53 pmBeen done. Alan Shepard, Apollo 14.Though, the reason we haven't been back is that the Russians showed us only a short while after Apollo 11, with Lunokhod, that even a relatively basic robot could do the job better at a fraction of the cost. The logistics of providing for humans on the moon for several months of exploration would be colossal. For a robot it's just enough energy and maybe an occasional oilchange. Figuratively speaking.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 09:45:38 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on December 12, 2017, 05:50:19 pmThe reason we haven't been back to the moon has nothing to do with Lunokhod. Lunokhod showed robots to be a better solution, but this turned out to be irrelevant. The changing political environment meant no country saw merit is spending substantial sums of money on any form of lunar exploration. India and China have done the minimum needed to demonstrate their technical prowess. Apart from that, people have largely ignored the moon.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 10:24:06 pm
content: Well we've already been to the moon, we've shown we can do it, we know what's there, a bunch of dust and rocks, along with artifacts we've left behind. What more is really to be gained by going back to the moon? It's a bit like climbing Mt Everest, it isn't the grand achievement it once was, and if we go there enough times it will turn into the same dump littered with garbage, abandoned equipment and corpses that Everest is.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2017, 10:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on December 12, 2017, 10:24:06 pmWell we've already been to the bottom of the ocean, we've shown we can do it, we know what's there, a bunch of fish and rocks, along with trash we've left behind. What more is really to be gained by going back to the bottom of the ocean?We have turned Earth inside out for centuries and still learn new things about it every day. Even if you just take things into account that aren't unique to Earth within our solar sytem. Every celestial body we visit turns out to be much more complicated and complex than we initially thought. I can't imagine why anyone would think we're done exploring and learning about the Moon. We know nothing, and we prove we know nothing every time we bother to look at something a bit closer.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 02:43:15 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 amUnited Statesdo notown the International Space Station:http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/International_Space_Station_legal_framework"The International Space Station is a co-operative program between Europe, United States, Russia, Canada, and Japan"

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 02:57:22 am
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on December 13, 2017, 02:43:15 amThat's what I was getting at in one of my previous posts. It's not the USS, it's the ISS. Initally it was intended to be an exclusive US thing, but sharing the bill seemed to be a better idea.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 03:27:29 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 02:13:01 amOh wow did not realize that, but really not that surprised now that I think about it.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 09:28:28 am
content: NASA's entire 2018 budget is under $20 billion which is less than 0.5% of the total federal budget. The Department of Defense burns through that much money in less than two weeks.The money spent by NASA on space exploration is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entire US federal budget and it's probably worth it for the entertainment value alone.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 11:31:39 am
content: http://theantimedia.org/ai-fake-videos/

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 11:39:05 am
content: Quote from: MrW0lf on December 13, 2017, 11:31:39 amWhat? You're going to try to make it into another dowsing thread?

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 11:44:40 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 13, 2017, 11:39:05 amNow if you put it like that it would be fairly fuel efficient to take 2 light wires to the moon instead of ground radarThey not going to drink pee there are they

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 01:06:51 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on December 12, 2017, 10:24:06 pmNobody had sex on the moon. Until that is done, science has to be made, and billions shall be sacrificed.Quote from: rdl on December 13, 2017, 09:28:28 amNASA qoutes, that for 10 billion, they could make a permanent outpost on the moon. I think that is a bargain, that we should take.BTW, fun fact:https://sites.google.com/site/issinspire/home/design/modulesThere are 3 modules on the ISS, which are made by the USA alone. There are 6 which are Russian alone.There seems to be a 2nd space race coming, now with more participants.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 01:28:47 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 13, 2017, 01:06:51 pmThe second space race is in full swing in Asia. The third is coming, maybe?

author: 3roomlab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 01:41:31 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on December 11, 2017, 08:30:24 pm"and utlilization", what kind of utilization?

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 01:47:07 pm
content: Mining operations. Like rare earth minerals, helium 3 and cheese. Lots of cheese.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 03:09:05 pm
content: So, NASA finally decided to fake the fake moon landing?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 03:12:21 pm
content: The fact that we Americans think the money spent on NASA is much larger than it is, relative to the entire Federal budget and especially the black hole of DOD spending, is tribute to the high amounts of value spending money on NASA consistently buys us. But, money is spent far more wisely when its spent as part of a process that attempts to get something done, other than spending money. Necessity is the mother of invention.Quote from: rdl on December 13, 2017, 09:28:28 am

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 05:02:05 pm
content: Quote from: M4trix on December 11, 2017, 09:45:26 pmLets cure every disease! And then? The planet is already overpopulated? We will need colonies elsewhere!Alexander.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2017, 06:44:15 pm
content: Quote from: SkyMaster on December 13, 2017, 02:43:15 amI have always thought of it as an international cooperation thing. A feel-good project initially involving Canda, Japan and the US.The US could have funded the ISS without international help if we had the will to do so.The entire project has cost about $100B over 13 years as of 2011 or about $8B per year. Had we wanted to do so, we could have built it from pocket change with no outside help. We spill more money than that!http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/space_missions/international_space_stationEarly planning began in 1982 and Russia's involvement didn't start until '93 during the Clinton yearshttp://iss.jaxa.jp/iss/history/index_e.html

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2017, 04:15:16 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 13, 2017, 06:44:15 pmBut it didn't happen.Have a look at the US debt Clock:http://www.usdebtclock.org/

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2017, 06:15:06 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 12, 2017, 10:31:02 pmThere are actually large portions of the bottom of the ocean we've never seen, much less been to. We know quite a bit more about the moon than we do about vast swaths of area under the sea on our own planet.When it comes to space, I'm as curious as anybody about what's out there, but the moon I think is rather boring, it's relatively nearby, we've already gone there, rather even than a manned mission to Mars I'd prefer to send autonomous rovers to a bunch of places further out that we've never seen. Unfortunately physics prevents us from doing much in the way of exploration outside of our own solar system, the distances are just too vast, even traveling at the speed of light it would take ages to get somewhere.

author: Paul Moir
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2017, 08:05:52 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 13, 2017, 06:44:15 pmBy "We", the American people I have no doubt you are correct. But by "We" NASA, I don't think they could. 30% of the budget was going into the Shuttle, which they couldn't cancel and still build the station. What was left over couldn't cover the station even if they trimmed most of their other expenses to the bone.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2017, 09:01:07 am
content: Quote from: Paul Moir on December 14, 2017, 08:05:52 amMost developed western nations could have done it if they wanted. Borrowing yourself to oblivion isn't a hard thing to do and the technology and execution is a matter of pouring enough money into it.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2017, 09:08:20 am
content: Quote from: james_s on December 14, 2017, 06:15:06 amWe don't know a lot about the bottom of the ocean, but we also don't know a lot about the Moon. That was the point. Again, we consider a lot of celestial bodies boring until we take a proper look. They inevitably turn out to be much more rich and complex than initionally thought. We basically don't know anything about the Moon. It's like going to Russia, camping near a lake for a weekend and then declaring you know most there is to know about Russia. Oh, and you have some pictures taken from the aircraft when flying in.Sending manned missions isn't about exploring. Exploring by robot is the preferred method in a lot of cases. Sending out humans across the solar system is about preserving the species, and turning ourselves from a planet bound speciec into an interplanetary one. If we stay here, we're as good as dead. We might be anyway, but humans are good at putting up a fight.

author: 3roomlab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2017, 10:25:46 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 13, 2017, 06:44:15 pmi think nasa overspent. and it is being taken advantage of by official suppliers/contractors.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34170.0