The Mars mission is not solely about finding life. Its about many things, including resources, research, survivability, and umpteen other things.
If NASA has been so integral [successfully so] in technology, industries, and the private sector, then why do they still need money from taxpayers? That's like saying Microsoft should receive monetary aid for computer development. The profits derived from NASA's advancements should be paying for their expensive taxi rides to Mars. so you're saying NASA, itself, created it rather than the brains working for NASA? In that case, why not just fire the employees and spend that money elsewhere?
That's like saying universities should turn into companies because of all the things they've discovered. yes exactly what I'm saying. Are you on heroin? NASA created stuff out of necessity for their missions. Nice try.
Now you're making an assumption that the employment results would've been hindered. For all you know a different program might've created 20k more jobs than NASA. How many jobs do think could've been created if the US had instead spent the past 20 years working on an extensive program to make the country & planet a healthier & cleaner place, you know--- since that's something the current American people might truly benefit from & experience during our lifetime? Besides, of all these technological advancements you speak of, how many of those are being produced in the US? How many jobs has NASA taken away thanks to advanced technology making many human jobs expendable or unnecessary? Are you saying less jobs would be created if the massive cost of one trip to Mars or the Moon weren't allocated elsewhere?
I wasn't making an assumption, I was pointing out it is just as likely less would have been done with the money, thereby disproving your theory. What we have is a known (NASA and its results) and you are trying to tell us we'd have got the same or better results if the money was spent differently, and that is an unknown and conjecture. Conjecture, I might add, not based on any factual evidence either, just a gut feeling you have. You don't even have any real specifics of how the money would have been better spent. Making things cleaner is not specific, btw. And p.s.: Some of the cleaner things NASA has pioneered: - Derived from technology on the Space Shuttle, a waste compactor that needs no electrical power has been developed for boats and recreational vehicles. The device has hand-operated ratchets that drive a pressure plate with a compressive force of 2,000 pounds – a more than ample amount to crush cans, for instance. - A US firm has created an air-quality monitoring system based on a Nasa scheme. The monitor can analyse the gases emerging from chimneys and determine the amount of individual gases present, helping to ensure that buildings meet emission standards. - Research into using bacteria as a means to remove impurities and purify water is being still being undertaken by Nasa. The system makes use of scant resources by turning waste water from respiration, sweat and urine into drinkable liquid and it's hoped that this could help poorer communities in developing countries. - The technology used to make parachutes to land exploratory probes was adapted by tire companies to create tires five times stronger than steel. Such technology, pioneered for use in tires by Goodyear in the late 1970s, employs long-chain molecular structures to increase tread lives by 10,000 miles, meaning that we can all drive further for less. - Nasa research into possible bases on the Moon and Mars is looking into the use of plants to provide food, oxygen and water, reducing the need for outside supplies. The research is based on hydroponics, in which plants grow in a liquid instead of in soil. It could be used in food production on Earth. - Nasa fire-detection wizardry developed in the early 1990s is now used by the authorities in the USA to detect forest fires that might not be spotted soon enough on the ground, and pinpoint their location. Infrared technology identifies the extent of a fire so firefighters can be sent to the right places to tackle it. - It may seem strange, but the green movement owes a debt of gratitude to the rockets that blasted off into space. Efficient solar-power technologies – in which silicon crystals grown in a laboratory convert light into electrical energy – were first developed by Nasa in the early 1980s. The same technology is now widely used by companies manufacturing solar panels. There's more.
finding life? .....which could be disastrous. Either nothing good or only bad could come of it. Anything designed to live on earth is already on earth. Being indigenous to a specific location doesn't necessarily apply to just places on earth; it could apply macroscopically to our galaxy as well, and entire universe for that matter. survivability? for whom? resources? what resources? How about first trying to save the ones we have rather than looking for a quick fix so that the top 1% can continue milking the planet a little longer? research? How about first researching how to save our own planet? But again, the wealthy elites don't want to do that b/c it would hurt their pockets. umpteen other things? you're naming things that don't even exist?
Lol. Reading your post, I've come to the conclusion you don't actually believe the points your arguing. They sound very forced. So forced, I'm wondering if you aren't someone who has been here before under another name.
Sorry, I don't see a university asking for billions in tax payer money; not to mention, they charge tuition and make millions in other ways. Gotchya, so it was NASA, a 4 letter acronym for National Aeronautics & Space Administration, that did the creating rather than the actual brains who developed and ran it? Basically you're saying those brains couldn't have been applied elsewhere and that NASA is run on computers.
No, I'm saying nasa space missions dictated what needed to be done, such as, going to space. Just like ww2 and the need to break code is what dictated the creation of computers.
Give me a break. There's 100 billion planets in our Milky Way Galaxy alone, 1,500 of those within 50 light years of earth, and an estimated 10 billion of which are terrestrial. The probability that no else has a means of currency nor is as evolved as we are is..... well..... you'd have a higher probability of porking our entire cheerleader squad simultaneously, non-drug aided.
I don't think you understand the odds that we even exist. And my point is the closest life forms could be less evolved then us, hence your let them spend their own damn money may not be applicable.
that sounds like a religious influenced statement, no offense. you're assuming they haven't already been here or that past civilizations as well as NASA haven't used and aren't currently using their technology to further our own.
well, automobiles get people to and from work just fine without the need to take a rocket ship. Just saying.
Not at all. Odds are odds. No I'm saying it is possible the lifeforms don't have currency, aren't as evolved as us, etc. As for using their technology, would have been nice of them to give us a better rocket.
That's quite a convenient way to dismiss a post. Sorry, this is my first time visiting this science and technology forum. Technology was underway long before NASA was here, so to say it wouldn't have continued on that path w/o NASA seems silly IMO. NASA isn't the only big aerospace "company" on the planet. Sh** gets invented all the time w/o a NASA stamp on it. Not saying NASA is worthless by any stretch, but they can still advance technology w/o spending billions on certain stuff that doesn't seem like a necessity such as looking for another planet to inhabit despite no earthly living soul likely being around to see it happen. Here's a novel idea, if we're so worried about finding another habitable planet so that future generations of Americans will be capable of scurrying off to it after we've destroyed our own, then it seems the most sensible thing to do is focus those resources on saving the planet we currently have. But no, humans will be humans, and rather than trying to salvage & restore what we're f***ing up, we'd rather take the easy way out and simply pack up and move. The biggest brainfart of it all is that we'll have likely destroyed our own planet before we have a chance to "escape" it. How much more ****ing technology do we need at the present moment anyways? What, your Iphone doesn't update scores fast enough for you? Technology is expanding faster than we can deal with it.
it kinda does. I was just pointing out that rocket ships are a little overkill regarding transportation, that we get to work just fine with automobiles.
I dismissed it because that one post was ridiculous and clearly not serious on your part. You are still pulling things straight out your butt. There is no way to say these things would have been invented without spending the money. You don't know that. For what you say to be true, then why didn't someone, without the money invent these things first or at the same time? You really couldn't be more wrong from logical standpoint. So wrong, I'm at least 75% sure, you are someone else.
They did, Steve Jobs and that other dude developed and created Apple in his parent's garage...without much money or input at all in 1976.....they were totally independent of NASA's engineers, he was actually a college dropout.....now has the strides made by NASA helped Apple out in what they produce today?? Sure.....
There is life on Mars!!!! See it!!! Seriously though what they did putting this thing on another planet is amazing I agree... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/space-junkies-try-explain-mysterious-image-photo-mars-190419541.html
No one can say for sure they would have been invented, but the astounding brains behind it all would've likely still be capable of technological accomplishments under a different roof than NASA's. And besides, who's to say that a hypothetical combination of slightly lesser technology paired with a healthier planet wouldn't have been a better alternative than setting the technology bandwidth at max and incurring a lot of the damaging trash that came with it? Why's it have to be an all-out technology rampage or nothing?... why can't it be a little more in the middle so that we can spend more time & resources on integral way of life issues which would help create more jobs, too? But you and I both know that the answer is the top .01% who run the country don't give a ****. They just want money to continue being directly or indirectly funneled into their pockets just as they do in every other industry. It's all about the manipulation of power & money; any resulting technology only means more power & money, and the more money that gets trickled into the system from our pockets is more money that finds its way into theirs. I'm telling you right now I've never had a discussion with you about any of this stuff, this site or any other Dolphins one.
Do you really think I'm arguing that all invention happens through NASA? C'mon. Why were the things NASA invented only invented by NASA, if what he's saying is true?
You are saying it as if its guaranteed. That makes you wrong. You act as if all these minds are just inventing without purpose and anyone could have harnessed them. For all you know, the rocket scientists would have just followed in their dads' footsteps and become plumbers without NASA. Maybe little Jimmy doesn't get inspired by the moon landing and just takes over the family store. lol, that was a lot of conditionals.
http://www.panoramas.dk/mars/greeley-haven.html Perhaps not worth what it cost to get there, but that is some stellar imagery imo.
exactly. NASA isn't necessarily the specific & motivating factor behind it all; man's desire coupled with his imagination are, as well as technological accomplishments that predate NASA yet are integral to NASA's operations. - Man wanted light & energy absent fire, so in 1660 man created the first static electric generator [Germany]. (long before NASA) - Man wanted to individually get from point A to point B quicker while also expanding the distance from A to B, so in 1769 man created first motorized vehicle [France]. (also long before NASA) - Man was envious of aquatic creatures' ability to swim under water, so in 1771 man invented the air pump [England]. (long before NASA) - Man wanted long distance travel and more efficient means of transportation, so in 1803 man built the first steam engine locomotive [England]. (pre NASA) - Man wanted an alternative means of communication, so from roughly 1837-1876 man created the telephone. (pre NASA) - Man has been envious of birds' (or aliens') ability to fly, so man created the powered airplane in 1903. (pre NASA) - Man wanted to transmit signals without the use of connected cables, so from 1878-1900 man invented "radio". (so it wasn't NASA who first got the ball rolling on wireless communication) - Man wanted the ability of remote viewing, so from 1884-1926 man created television. (before NASA's existence) - Man wanted the ability to see further than his eye allowed, so Newton invented the first telescope in 1668. (long before NASA's existence) - Man wanted rapid, distant air travel (using himself or an object), so in 1943 man created the V-2 rocket [Germany], the first to enter outer space, and the progenitor of all modern rockets. Not only did the US govt seize as many of these as possible but they also captured & employed the German rocket scientists as well as seized the mechanization equations for the V-2 guidance, navigation and control systems, and advanced development concept vehicles. And it wasn't NASA who first duplicated and improved the V-2, it was the Soviet Union [aided by German scientists]; and it wasn't NASA who sent up the first satellite, it was the Soviet Union. Basically, much of what man has desired or conjured up in his mind, he's accomplished; and if it weren't for all these pre-NASA technological accomplishments or Russia's space program being ahead in the 50's, NASA wouldn't exist, and it's b/c of these prior technological advancements that NASA actually does exist. So I have a hard time believing the world wouldn't be remotely as technologically advanced today if NASA were obsolete considering the groundwork for much of it had already been laid.
Looking at those images it resembles some areas out west, like in Nevada and Arizona. Looks like the atmosphere would be breathable, just by looks obviously. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Probably b/c once something is invented, it kinda ends the inventing process, even if someone else is on the path right behind you. And not all of it I'd call "inventing" as much as I would "fine-tuning" or "improving". It's like the BASF slogan, "We don't make the products you buy. We make the products you buy, better.". NASA didn't invent: rockets the telescope radio transmission electricity remote viewing robotics computers the integrated circuit the microprocessor super computers laser technology satellites nuclear induction & nuclear magnetic resonance (underlying 2 principles of MRI) It's more like they hired the best minds in the world to improve ****. So I have a difficult time believing all these technologies set in motion [outside of NASA at that] wouldn't have continued developing elsewhere, especially if NASA's brightest minds weren't employed elsewhere like they were prior to 1958, and many of those weren't even American.
Sigh. If what you're saying is true, then why weren't non-NASA people inventing the things NASA did invent. This isn't a hard question. Your list is great, luckily for me, I never argued those things were invented by NASA, but don't let that stop the silliness.
I doubt whether anyone cares or not, but using anecdotes does not disprove general observations. This thread has officially reached the ridiculous stage. NASA didn't invent the printing press? No *** Sherlock. Steve Jobs was smart? Tell me more! I'm sorry folks feel the search for knowledge in the universe is a misguided financial adventure. After all, God created the world and saw that it was good. That's what this is really about, correct? Let me can guess the alternative. Drill baby drill.
In the end it doesn't matter what I think or you think, they are going to do what they are going to do....so with that here's to hoping they find a cure to cancer....
