Space Shuttle Disaster

[hobson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yournamehere:

I can't imagine a planet full of people - all unwilling to leave the safety of their familiar territory. Imagine no Leif Ericson, no Columbus, no Lewis & Clark, no Henry Hudson, no Vikings, no James Cook, no Francis Drake, no Marco Polo, no Cortes, ... the list is endless.
I would have been born in, and never left, France

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's interesting...I think what we're skirting around is the question "what is progress?" The aforementioned examples of progress certainly vary depending on your point of view. Were those guys great explorers, or instigators of some of the worst genocides in history? I definitely struggle with the idea that if I am going to enjoy my computer, then how can I diss the economic system that produced it? By the same token, I'm hoping that folks who want to write sonnets to Progress and Exploration also try to reflect on the death and suffering it causes. You can't have one without the other.

One of my favorite historians of technology is Michael Adas, and in one of his books, Machines as a Measure of Man, he talks about the problem of what I call "moving the rock." As Britian colonized Africa in the 1800s, lots of colonial officials, missionaries and other sorts of travelers wrote accounts of how they saw the differences between the European and African technology (mind you, these were all writings meant to expound on the racial superiority of the Europeans).

One writer talked about how Europeans were bringing Progress to this continent, and the way he described Africans' need for western-style progress was to describe the differing systems of road-building.

The Europeans, he noted, were superior because they conceived of great machines that would move the large boulder that was impeding the straight trajectory of a new road. At great cost and effort they built this machine, shipped it to Africa, moved the rock and many others, and built a straight road. The Africans, on the other hand, were deemed savages because, "lacking imagination," they merely walked around the rock.

I am not kidding, a real-life colonial official wrote this. I think it is a great way of thinking about how the idea of "progress=more technology" is not universal--rather, it is highly culturally-specific.

To most people here, "progress" implies change in a single possible trajectory. I think it's important to remember that this particular trajectory is not inherent in the human condition but rather came from arbitrary decisions about what kinds of science we want to pursue. We also overlay all kinds of ideology onto science (i.e. as proof of racial superiority in the case of imperial powers, or in the US-Soviet space race) that can affect our interpretation of the activity. If you peeled the US nationalist ideology off the space program, what would you have? Noble intentions to explore and discover? One would hope so, but I think it's a lack of imagination that conceives of that as the only possible answer.

[Elghund2]

Hobson,

While I am sure that many scientists believe they are involved in "pure" scientific discovery, the reality is that no great scientist has ever been involved in such an endevor. If you peel away national ideology or commercialism from scientific research, you would be left with nothing but bright people, thinking great ideas and producing no results.

All scientific research throughout man's history has been funded by the state or the corporation. Without that connection, you would never have had Galileo, Einstein or others because they would have had to take up practical trades instead of doing research.

You are on the mark about the competitive nature of research funding. If you did not have nationalistic pride or capitalistic greed, you would have no research. There would be no incentive to fund it. It is interesting to look at the numbers of patents filed by country of origin. The countries that are/were communistic or socialist produce a small percentage of the patentable ideas or technologies. The vast majority of technological advancement comes from industrialized, capitalistic nations.

You comment about European/African ways tends to ignore the fact that the countries with more advanced technology also have a higher standard of living. Just compare the life expectancy/infant mortality/etc. of the poorer non-technological countries with other parts of the world. You will see the lag significantly behind.

So you can bemoan "advancement" and its negative side effects but because of it you will live a longer, healthier life than those in other parts of the world. (This is not a comment on the sharing of technology with the poorer countries as that is a whole other issue).

"I thought I was dead once but it turns out, I was only in Nebraska."

[JER]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I can't imagine a planet full of people - all unwilling to leave the safety of their familiar territory. Imagine no Leif Ericson, no Columbus, no Lewis & Clark, no Henry Hudson, no Vikings, no James Cook, no Francis Drake, no Marco Polo, no Cortes, ... the list is endless.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yournamehere, there is a seemingly endless list of European 'explorers' who, in addition to 'leaving the safety of their familiar territory', took away the safety of other peoples' familiar territory. Just ask an Aztec how he feels about Cortes...if you can find one.

hobson (we do have similar opinions on a number of issues) raises some good points.

Hopefully, in the wake of this terrible accident, some good old fashioned imagination will be applied to the space program, and we will get rid of expensive, outdated programs like the space shuttle and bring space exploration into the 21st century.

[Velvet]

But that's the problem. Most Americans no longer have the necessary imagination. They don't see that we need to go back to the moon first and then jump forward from there. They only see that we need to do things firmly planted on Earth, or they feel that we need to stay with the old technology and not spend the money on anything new so we can do further exploration.

It's really sad that we can't all rally behind the space program as we did in the 60s. The leaps we made in technology as well as imagination in that time period were amazing and it's sad to see that many people nowadays are so complacent about exploration and don't often see it's benefits.

Imagination is definitely needed.

It's all about ME, ME, ME!!! (The only signature worthy of a real DQ.)

[TrakHack]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elghund2:

You comment about European/African ways tends to ignore the fact that the countries with more advanced technology also have a higher standard of living. Just compare the life expectancy/infant mortality/etc. of the poorer non-technological countries with other parts of the world. You will see the lag significantly behind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, this "standard of living" is determined by those same European standards. Much like in North America where many non-native people cannot understand the values of natives, I'd be willing to bet the Europeans did not fully understand the African cultures and what was important to them in determining quality of life. Low infant mortality is great, but look at the extremes some developed countries have gone to to save every infant no matter how premature of sick. Is this necessarily progress?

I must be dead though. I'm in Nebraska.

[buryinghill1]

Anybody want my 10th espresso?

In reality, I like the space program because I think space is where we should put our weaponry.
Forget what I said about exploration. All a bunch of garbage.
I like the idea of lazers aimed at Sodamn Insane, instead of sending over boatloads of sweet American innocents.

STAR WARS, Dubya!

[DMK]

Sister, progress is just like anything else. You didn't think it would ALL be good, did you?

Just like it wasn't all roses and sunshine in the good old days.

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." Albert Einstein

[RAyers]

yournamehere,

Sorry to disappoint, but after Challenger, Reagan made sure NO military payloads or functions are ever carried out by NASA. He made NASA's sole charter to oversee the human and scientific exploration of Earth from orbit and beyond and to aid in the commercialization of low-earth orbit, including mining of asteroids and other planets. All military functions of space have been left to the Airforce. Therefore space based weapons are in the defense budget, while NASA has it's own line item.

I know you are being facetious, but I thought I could use this chance to educate. J

FYI to all, I just pulled the NASA and NIH budgets for the 2003-2004 fiscal years. NASA is $15.2 billion (NASA.gov) and NIH is $27 billion (NIH.gov) just to give insight as to how little NASA really gets compared another major domestic program. The current defense budget is at $379 billion, not including homeland security (from the Office of the Secretary of Defense). These are the numbers provided by the accounting branches of each of these agencies and are available to all via the internet. I think the numbers I gave earlier were incorrect in their values, sorry.

Again, what does this mean? As others have much more clearly stated the return to us, economically and socially, is very high based upon the initial investment.

Yes, we need to re-evaluate the entire space program, it is time for the X-31 (single stage to orbit) and X-33 (Space Station Crew Return Module) to become realities. Just think of the new things that will come to us from that! New York to LA in 45 minutes! (Remember, the Shuttle crashed in TX, 16 minutes from landing on the East Coast of FL!). The world will be much smaller and the chances for us to understand each other, much greater. I know, and the chance for us to contaminate other cultures is that much greater too.

Reed

[M. O'Connor]

Progress can be a double edged sword...but I'd rather have two edges than none...sure glad that science and "progress" have made headway against disease and pestilence, ie cholera, diptheria, malaria, smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, influenza, and diabetes, not to mention rabies, encephalitis, rhino, etc...and in record time, West Nile.

MCL
'r' H/J/HEq

[SoEasy]

And, according to this, head trauma ... http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...on/5110533.htm

[mwalshe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JER:
Just ask an Aztec how he feels about Cortes...if you can find one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JER do you know anything about the Aztecs? They were not half bad at the bloodthirsty conquerer thing themselves...

There were plenty of Empire builders and explorers amongst those aboriginal people too. The Navajo are Athabaskan-speaking people and traveled from Alaska to the Southwest, to make a living raiding the Hopi and other tribes, who represented the northernmost Aztec influenced cultures. The Aztecs conquered half of South/Central America, enslaved the locals and demanded heavby tribute. The same thing happened in Europe a couple thousand years before with the Celts, Romans, Goths, Saxons, Normans etc. etc. Conquer, civilise, decline and defeat were humanitys natural cycle for eons.

Technonolgy has always seemed to me to be our best weapon against the kind of "pillage and plunder" tendencies that the entire human species has. Make it more rewarding to co-operate and to compete on the playing field of the mind, rather then the battlefield.

I also don't see how space expolration can be called a natural extension of humanity's desire to conquer, I mean as far as I know we're all alone here, so there's no-one to conquer anyway!

[buryinghill1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Reagan made sure NO military payloads or functions are ever carried out by NASA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I am old enough to remember this unfortunate decision but thanks ...

[Whistlejacket]

?0nally posted by M. O'Connor:
Progress can be a double edged sword...but I'd rather have two edges than none..
[/QUOTE]

Yes, this in part contains what I consider to be the crux of the matter. Specifically, that in the widespread application of any scientific discovery come the potential for it to do a least some degree of harm.

Does the degree of harm outweigh its benefits...well, that would have to be considered on a case by case basis. But it also requires that we continuously be viligant for harmful fallout from the application of new scientific discoveries. It is our responsibility (socially, environmentally, ethically, etc.) to minimize any harmful side effects. And we also must be willing to discard that line of scientific discovery if the negative side effects outweigh the benefits.

Frankly, this approach is nothing new. Happens all the time in medicine. A huge area in pharmaceutical research these day are drugs to lower cholesterol and hence reduced the risk of heart disease. In the last couple of years a few really promising drugs that signficantly lowered cholesterol came on the market. Problem was, that at the rate of approximately 1 per 50,000 -100,000 people taking the drug experienced serious drug-induced liver damage. As such, these drug were pulled off the market. So even though these drugs had the potential to help many people, they harmed a few...and hence this specific manifestation of scientific discovery was stopped.

IMHO, in the widespread application of virtually every scientific discovery there is the potential for at least some degree of harm. (Maybe the only exception to this is velcro )

As such, it requires that when we apply a scientific discovery, we are constantly evaluating it to make sure the benefits of its widespread applications outweigh the costs.

Is this realization in any way, shape, or form discouraging of scientific discovery and altruism...in my book...absolutely not! But nor should these scientific discoveries be given a "free pass" when it comes to the possibility of the negative consequences of their widespread application.

[pt]

OK OK - I was going to stay out of it, but you all make it so tempting!

I do know we all have the right to pursue whatever dreams we choose

Ohhhh, Snowbird, you don't even want to open that can of worms. We can both think of a lot of dreams no-one has the right to pursue!

you are a consumer of these goods...I think when you use them on a daily basis you become complicit, and you lose some credibility indicating otherwise

*sigh* We all use what we must to live in today's society. So yes, we are all complicit to a degree. I'm asking for thoughtful examination to what we use, why we use it, and its place, good or bad, in the world. Apparently that's too much to ask. And there's the question of whether we could have discovered most of these technological gizmos without going into space. Apparently that's waaaay too much to ask.

Interesting that all who have been in space acknowledge how small we are in a big universe..........and the fact we are probably not alone.

Well, isn't it a shame that their philosophical educations were so lacking that they couldn't figure that out without orbiting the earth. Of course, given the human race's past record, if/when we do make contact with "others", we'll probably kill them and steal their land.

Sorry if you disagree but this is our future. Out there.

Oh, I don't disagree. Because we're ruining our present and destroying our future here. No, I don't disagree. I deplore.

All military functions of space have been left to the Airforce. Therefore space based weapons are in the defense budget, while NASA has it's own line item.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with . . . . That's just creative accounting. The money is still being spent on weaponry in space.

New York to LA in 45 minutes!

More rocket fuel = more pollution
More speed = less time
Time to think, dream, be human.
RushRushRushRushRush
That may be your idea of an ideal future; it isn't mine.

sure glad that science and "progress" have made headway against disease and pestilence, ie cholera, diptheria, malaria, smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, influenza, and diabetes, not to mention rabies, encephalitis, rhino, etc...and in record time, West Nile.

Where do you infer that I'm speaking against science? My whole premise is that we should focus scientific study on improving life on Earth before we take our destructive polluting tendencies into space or give them to those "others."

Technonolgy [sic] has always seemed to me to be our best weapon against the kind of "pillage and plunder" tendencies that the entire human species has. Make it more rewarding to co-operate and to compete on the playing field of the mind, rather then the battlefield.

And where do you see this happening? Reading the news this morning, I sure can't see any lessening in human aggressive tendencies.

Interesting article, SoEasy. Is there any proof that these discoveries couldn't have been made without leaving Earth?

IMO, thoughtful examination of our programs, including the space program, is required. We have such incredible destructive capabilities that we must accept the responsibility of deciding not only if we CAN do some things, but if we SHOULD. Well, we've always had that responsibility, but the potential cost of shirking it is so much greater than before.

[Bethe Mounce]

We are a nation of pioneers....always seeking to find out the answer to "why?" Pioneers who were willing to risk their lives and think outside the box founded this great county. The space program must go on and it will. We must have more folks who think outside the box so that we will have the benefit of those answers which could be the cure for every and any disease that comes along.......

[mwalshe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pt:_Technonolgy [sic] has always seemed to me to be our best weapon against the kind of "pillage and plunder" tendencies that the entire human species has. Make it more rewarding to co-operate and to compete on the playing field of the mind, rather then the battlefield._

And where do you see this happening? Reading the news this morning, I sure can't see any lessening in human aggressive tendencies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, we're always going to be aggressive, that's our nature. Maybe I'm just a wishful thinker but I think that increased communication and ease of travel as well could help to breakdown regional prejudices (like the EU) and that the things like cancer research and the space program can provide a more productive outlet for competition, as well as room for expansion which seems to be a basic human need, even if it's by proxy We can't destroy the planet, but we can destroy ourselves if we try hard enough.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who knows what Egyptian or Mesoamerican explorers did <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't know about the Mesoptamians (former inhabitants of the land now called Iraq), but the Ancient Egyptian explorers found Punt.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

[poltroon]

Great Space Colonization Novel

As it happens, this week I was already reading Kim Stanley Robinson's novel Red Mars. It's a fairly realistic rendition of a first colony on Mars, complete with details of the geology, and the engineering, psychological, and political (local and interplanetary) difficulties experienced by the colonists.

One of the more interesting themes is the tension between the desire of the colonists to make it a more hospitable place to live (getting power, protecting themselves from cosmic radiation) vs the desire to preserve the beauty of Mars as it is.

Well worth reading.

[pt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IMHO, in the widespread application of virtually every scientific discovery there is the potential for at least some degree of harm. (Maybe the only exception to this is velcro )

As such, it requires that when we apply a scientific discovery, we are constantly evaluating it to make sure the benefits of its widespread applications outweigh the costs.

Is this realization in any way, shape, or form discouraging of scientific discovery and altruism...in my book...absolutely not! But nor should these scientific discoveries be given a "free pass" when it comes to the possibility of the negative consequences of their widespread application. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well put, Whistlejacket!

[RAyers]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be one of the most interesting, diverse and civil discussions I have seen on this BB. I am really enjoying the diversity of opinion. Could this ever be applied to discussions of hunters, equitation, etc.? ;-) I'm glad pt came back!

As for the accounting practices of our government, I agree, it is a shell game, however, for the purposes of this discussion I assumed we were considering only the monies used to fund NASA which is only allowed to do commercial or purely scientific functions in space. Believe me, I know about the military side, I put quite a few of their payloads in orbit.

As for the use of hypersonic aircraft, they may actually reduce pollution because they would use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel. The result of the combustion, water.

Reed