View Poll Results: Should Sell The Right To Post logos On the Shuttle Tank

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yea Great way To Fund Space Missions

    35 74.47%
  • Nope It's Just cost Nasa Goverment Funding

    2 4.26%
  • No Way SPace should Only Be for The Snob's, <like me>

    5 10.64%
  • What Funding,

    5 10.64%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 74

Thread: Why is Capitalism an dirty word to scientest and Bad Astronomy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9

    Exclamation Why is Capitalism an dirty word to scientest and Bad Astronomy

    Bad Astronomy got all upset. When an Russian hit a golf ball off of the space station. NASA Turns It's nose up at the Russians selling rides to the station < only to people that completed the training program>
    All this Helps keep the Russian space program alive and funded. I think it's a great way to fund science and space program. Look how much Tang. Made off the space program in the first years. How much do you think <Coke, Pepsi,
    Ford,etc> would pay to put their logo on the Shuttle Fuel Tank.
    How many Mission that are now in the planning. But may never go past the planning. Only because there is no funding.
    How many mission could be funded by selling off the right to put an logo on the shuttle fuel tank.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    247
    I also dont understand why the American press and NASA seem to look down on Russia for incorporating advertising and paying tourists into their program.

    Seems bizzarely hypocritical since America was so against communism.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    As long as NASA refuses to do advertising, it helps boost Russias advertising revenue. Maybe it's a kind of space foreign aid?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    247
    So the dirty comments are just part of their gracious plan?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    yea, perhaps mcdonalds could fund the millitary too.
    fatten up school kids to fund a patriot missile, makes great sense.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    So the dirty comments are just part of their gracious plan?
    Exactly. They get to feel righteous and the Russians get to make money. Everyone benefits.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    yea, perhaps mcdonalds could fund the millitary too.
    fatten up school kids to fund a patriot missile, makes great sense.
    They could sell ad space on soldiers' uniforms. It would serve as camouflage since advertisements are everywhere else.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,852
    I'm opposed to space tourism because we can't get enough qualified scientists up there, and taking one of them out so someone who just happens to have a lot of money can go instead strikes me as a bad idea.

    As to advertising, maybe we can run it a la PBS--this space shuttle was brought to you by Pepsi, Barnes & Noble, and taxpayers like you?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    I'm opposed to space tourism because we can't get enough qualified scientists up there, and taking one of them out so someone who just happens to have a lot of money can go instead strikes me as a bad idea.
    How about if each space tourist paid enough to send two scientists?

    But I wouldn't really worry. The scientific papers written on discoveries made by humans in space are very few. Machines that send infomation to earth by themselves seem to be where they scientific payoff is. Put the number of papers resulting from human performed experiments in space in one hand and papers resulting from the use of the Hubble telescope alone in the other. I imagine the weight difference would be quite large. If each space tourist paid for a hunk of machinery to be put in space science would probably come out far ahead.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    But I wouldn't really worry. The scientific papers written on discoveries made by humans in space are very few.
    Searching using the advanced Google scholar rotion on "Apollo" and "lunar", "Space Shuttle", "International space station", "Mir space station", spacelab", "Skylab" and " Salyut" reveal more than 7000, 11,000, 7000, 5,000, 6000, and 1,000 papers respectively.

    Even allowing for news and policy items being included in this list, and overlap between some categories, it is patently obvious that there have been 10's of thousands of scientific papers due to human space flight. It is utterly untrue say otherwise.

    Jon

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Searching using the advanced Google scholar rotion on "Apollo" and "lunar", "Space Shuttle", "International space station", "Mir space station", spacelab", "Skylab" and " Salyut" reveal more than 7000, 11,000, 7000, 5,000, 6000, and 1,000 papers respectively.

    Even allowing for news and policy items being included in this list, and overlap between some categories, it is patently obvious that there have been 10's of thousands of scientific papers due to human space flight. It is utterly untrue say otherwise.
    I have obviously been talking about something I know nothing about. My apologies.

    Could I bother you to ask for a few quick examples of disoveries made by humans in space beside medical studies and Apollo? I am drawing a blank.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    No worries! Just some random examples....

    Solar astronomy on Skylab was a major advance in our understanding of the sun, especially in the X-ray wayelengths, but also in UV and visible light. The station also gave the first clear pictures of coronal mass ejections.

    The SRTM mission (STS-99) provided the best digital elevation model of the whole Earth currentlyavailable (3 and 1 arc second resultion). The group I work for uses SRTM data on a daily basis. It is invaluable for catchment modelling, groundwater studies, geohazard prediction, mineral exploration, netoectonics, geomorphology, soil science and conservation planning, etc. In terms of immediate practical applications, This must rate as one of the most effective space missions ever.

    There has been a lot of materials research as well that has, I believe generated some interesting results. They include: critical point phase change behaviour, formation of homogenous alloys, colloidal behaviours and polymer precipitation, coatings studies for materials resistant to heat, light, high energy radiation, oxygen plasma, etc., and studies of surface crystallization. These were carried out on Spacelab, Mir, and Salyut, as well as the ISS.

    Likewise on these missions there has been important studies of the behaviour of liquids and gases in zero G, including experimental verification of plume physics and model development , capillary flow, combustion, and crystal growth. The research required on the spot supervision and operation and, while hardly glamorous is very useful for the developments of improved design, construction, and operation of all spacecraft, whether manned and unmanned, and their components.

    Jon

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Thanks. I remember the solar observatory on Skylab now, and pictures of ancient river beds beneath the Sahara from a shuttle mission.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Hmm... to address the OP; I think NASA is probably worried about more than just funding. As soon as you start taking money from one group, you have to start modifying your goals to include thier interests. They probably prefer to stay "pure". Just guessing, it's not like I secretly work for NASA...

    ...yeah, like i said, i don't secretly work for NASA. I sell insurance. And don't flame me with reasons why the above way of thinking is stupid or wrong, i'm not saying i agree or disagree. just offering what thier point of view might be.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,227
    I was upset not that the Russian Space Agency is trying to make money-- if you read what I wrote, I said they should do that -- but that they were doing a dangerous stunt to make money.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    Thanks. I remember the solar observatory on Skylab now, and pictures of ancient river beds beneath the Sahara from a shuttle mission.
    The Sahara rivers were imaged during the first Shuttle Imaging radar mission (SIR-A) back in 1981 (STS-2). The mission also discovered the network of Mayan irrigation channels in Guatemala. Later Shuttle radar missions before the SRTM the SIR-B and two SIR-C missions, I seem torecall there was German microwave radar on one of the Spacelab missions.

    Jon
    Last edited by JonClarke; 2006-Nov-30 at 10:05 PM. Reason: additional info

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    Go commercial
    Go private
    Go government
    Go all possibles ways

    But just go, now, today, and where is my boarding pass?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9
    So OK I see only a few reason. Why Bad Astronomy and It's likes. Are against funding Astronomy and space missions from capitalist sources.
    One was the danger. Well anyone going into space private person or NASA snob. "sorry" NASA scientist. should know well the risks.
    An where the risk in putting an company logo on the shuttle tank. An getting large amounts of money that can pay for mission that other wise would never get off the ground.
    the other major reason i see listed above. Is that a private person <one that paying his /her way. Would take a seat that could be used by a real sweetest.
    My reply to that is. There has yet to be a shuttle mission. That carried the max number of people the shuttle is able to lift.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    558
    I was just looking over the load range of my Ford F-150. Oh I know I know, tie it together man. It's amazing how much load capacity you can gain by loosing two people. I would imagine that the number of people put into orbit is figured out by payload, duration, orbit and personal needed. Not just there are x amount of seats so fill em or take up a passenger.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9
    OH come now Mclean, lets get real. Comparing an ford pick up to the space shuttle.O:-> LOL But funny as that maybe, your telling us that the shuttle is "alway" max out on it's lift compactly. or even most of the time.
    Let ME ask this would you rather have an moon base name by a company, which help pay for the moon base or no moon base out side of the scfi.
    also let me ask. Would you rather let some company name the first man mars ship. Or have no man mission to mars.
    Last edited by Tuero; 2006-Dec-05 at 06:03 AM. Reason: posted b4 i was done/ bad mouse

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    ...where the risk in putting an company logo on the shuttle tank.
    Tuero you seem to be consciously ignoring what the BA posted...why is that??

    ...NASA snob. "sorry" NASA scientist.
    Why the "sorry"...you obviously meant what you posted or you wouldn't have posted it...

    ...so what do you mean by "snob"??
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Tuero you seem to be consciously ignoring what the BA posted...why is that??



    Why the "sorry"...you obviously meant what you posted or you wouldn't have posted it...

    ...so what do you mean by "snob"??
    First I was not Ignoring BA reply, I went back to reread it and could not find
    the posting.
    An Yes the "sorry" In my posting NASA Snobs Shot at NASA was not Hart felt. O:-> It was meant to take a Little
    of the sting out of the comment.
    But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.
    An I can not help but wonder in Non Astronauts Jobs How many NON Phd's Get hire Unless your willing to clean TOILETS.
    Outside of NASA hiring, How Many LINKS can you find to Grass Roots space sites From NASA sites, Lets say like National space Society, or it likes.
    Just my feeling, But Unless your One their Gourp of Brains. They see you as One of the Hire Help.
    Last edited by Tuero; 2006-Dec-05 at 04:10 PM. Reason: bad mouse again

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders.
    So "upper management" are "snobs" if they hire a person with a PHD??...and there is something "wrong" with an astronaut candidate who has pursued a PHD??

    Yep...that's going to go over real big on this...a science board...good luck with that.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    So "upper management" are "snobs" if they hire a person with a PHD??...and there is something "wrong" with an astronaut candidate who has pursued a PHD??

    Yep...that's going to go over real big on this...a science board...good luck with that.
    Now who is putting words into another mouth. I never said or even implied. NASA was snob's for hiring anyone with a PHD. I have Lot's of respect for anyone that has a PHD
    Getting PHD take Lot's of hard work over many years.
    What I was Asking Is how Many "NON" PHD are hire. an Yes any group that say you have to A PHD to be consider Good enough to work here. I put into the Snob's box.
    What I am saying here is Yes hire PHD's. But don't turn your nose up at People who don't have a PHD's. Who just went another path in life and have other skills to bring to the tabler.
    I can't Believe that there are not ANY NON PHD holder out there. That would not make good astronauts.
    As for this being a Science board, Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    I never said or even implied. NASA was snob's for hiring anyone with a PHD.
    You wrote...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.
    So let me get this straight. You're saying that NASA management are "snobs" because they don't hire non_PHD's...is that right??

    What I am saying here is Yes hire PHD's. But don't turn your nose up at People who don't have a PHD's.
    And exactly what is your evidence that NASA has done this??

    ...Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->
    Don't be silly.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,852
    Sometimes, a degree is a very important qualification. It means you know enough, have worked hard enough, to have some idea what you're doing. After all, we make all medical doctors get certain degrees and go through certain amounts of training before they're allowed to actually be considered medical doctors, right? Are you suggesting, perhaps, that they should let people without so much as a GED build spaceships? To me, that is a simply horrifying concept.

    I'm also quite sure that there a lot of people working at NASA without a PhD, though I would suspect that they all have at least a Master's--and come to that, the secretaries and such probably don't need that!
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    <snip>I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.
    Looks like the answers are: quite a few, and apparently not.

    Take a look at this page from the Johnson Space Center. It has biographies of all current and past astronauts (the link is to the current ones). Of all the ones I looked at so far (10 or 12 at random), not one PHD. They all have a Masters degree though.

    So I guess your question is valid, but probably not in the way you intended.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuero View Post
    Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->
    No, but it keeps Gomers barely qualified for a grease monkey at your local service station from applying.

    Then again, my local Mechanic uses a bunch of equipment that looks pretty similar to that at NASA.

    'Salright though, I see you've got it figured out, won't waste any more time tryng to convince you more. And no, I'm not sorry.

    And yes, the Space Shuttle IS just like my F-150. It's over 20 years old. It performs a wide variety of tasks. It has had many people of different nationalities working in the back of it AND with tender loving care I might be able to coax it off the pad Thursday for a trip to my local dump, errr, space station.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    558
    How many times can I start a sentance with the word AND in one post?

    I know the number I should start it with. My apologies Gillianren.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,562
    0. Starting a sentence with and is very poor grammar. And, don't end a sentence with a preposition (with).

    Sorry MrClean...couldn't resist.

    My memory of the rules isn't the greatest either!

Similar Threads

  1. Chavez says capitalism may have ended life on Mars
    By Eoanthropus Dawsoni in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-22, 07:36 PM
  2. Dot Astronomy in One Word
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Dec-03, 04:00 PM
  3. Socialism vs Capitalism- where to begin?
    By Matherly in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-29, 04:23 AM
  4. Replies: 93
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-15, 02:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •