Curiosity due to attempt most complex Landing in Nasa history in a few hours.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I saw this posted on Facebook the other day.  People are such morons:

[rumborak]

Sounds like the same kind of people who tell you how to run a company despite them barely getting their shit together at their menial job.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

That and the fact they got the budget wrong by a factor of 40 doesnt strike me as someone who values critical thinking.

[Chino]

All the people that bitch about what it cost dont seems to ever have a response when you mention that the bank bail out cost more than we've spent in NASA since it started.

[cramx3]

In tough economist times I can understand some people dislike the use of our money on this, but for me, I think its awesome and a better use for our money than some of the other things the government spends money on.

[Chino]

I think more Americans should be proud as fuck about it. Honestly, it's one of the few things that the US is still truly the best at... Even when the Chinese land on the moon, I still don't think it will be as big of an accomplishment as this. There are so many things in history that started small and ended up becoming the every day norm. I highly doubt that anyone imagined the Wright Brother's plane would have lead to cross continental flight, or that pong would be the seedling to simulators that can replicate just about anything in the physical world. We may not see the benefits of missions like these in our lifetimes, but some generation in the future will eventually say "I'm glad those people hundreds of years ago made an attempt at this stuff". I'm happy with being part of those people.

[TL]

Exactly. Beyond pushing the boundaries of human accomplishment, and the thrill of exploration and discovery, the space program has led to a large number of unforeseen advances in various fields.

Another thing NASA's 50 year budget is lower than? Last year's US defense budget. The space program seems a bit more productive. They could reduce their defense budget to a level where it would still be by far the highest in the world, and do some incredible things with the space program (or a number of other programs).

[Adami]

How come no one is finding a completely new form of propulsion?

It seems we're traveling with the same stuff that we have been for 50 years. We need a completely new and radically faster form of space travel. Chino, I'm putting you in charge of this.

[Super Dude]

In tough economist times I can understand some people dislike the use of our money on this, but for me, I think its awesome and a better use for our money than some of the other things the government spends money on.

What irks me is that it's not even that much money; Wikipedia mentions the most we've ever spent as a percentage of our GDP was 3.5%, and the number now is closer to 1%.

[jasc15]

How come no one is finding a completely new form of propulsion?

It seems we're traveling with the same stuff that we have been for 50 years. We need a completely new and radically faster form of space travel. Chino, I'm putting you in charge of this.

There's plenty of research here, but few operational alternatives.  Ion thrusters are actually in use on a small scale for station keeping, not primary propulsion.  ESA's GOCE spacecraft uses Xenon ions for propulsion in low earth orbit.

[kári]

I have Google's banner blocked for the entire duration of the Olympics

Why?

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Okay, so I get irritated when people go on about how they're spending all this money, when people are still in need of jobs, etc., etc., as mentioned.  I understand that just because something doesn't benefit me directly in my wallet, doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial.  That said, I admit to being woefully under-educated as to the benefits of this endeavor.  So since there appear to be many here who ARE in the know, what do I say to someone who starts spouting off about how this new Mars mission cost all this money when there's people out of work and the government is spending money on a remote controlled car, etc.?  How do I explain why this is a good thing?

[Chino]

Okay, so I get irritated when people go on about how they're spending all this money, when people are still in need of jobs, etc., etc., as mentioned.  I understand that just because something doesn't benefit me directly in my wallet, doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial.  That said, I admit to being woefully under-educated as to the benefits of this endeavor.  So since there appear to be many here who ARE in the know, what do I say to someone who starts spouting off about how this new Mars mission cost all this money when there's people out of work and the government is spending money on a remote controlled car, etc.?  How do I explain why this is a good thing?

Here are a few of the many other medical advances that came at least in part from NASA:

Digital imaging breast biopsy system, developed from Hubble Space Telescope technology

Tiny transmitters to monitor the fetus inside the womb

Laser angioplasty, using fiber-optic catheters

Forceps with fiber optics that let doctors measure the pressure applied to a baby's head during delivery

Cool suit to lower body temperature in treatment of various conditions

Voice-controlled wheelchairs

Light-emitting diodes (LED) for help in brain cancer surgery

Foam used to insulate space shuttle external tanks for less expensive, better molds for artificial arms and legs

Programmable pacemakers

Tools for cataract surgery

And here's more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

[kári]

Well the thing is it's mainly about knowledge. It may lead to a better and deeper understanding in a lot of scientific fields. The obvious ones are of course geology, biochemistry and perhaps even biology, who knows. But there are numerous other fields. A better understanding and more knowledge of the technology needed not only to get it there but to design, develop and test it is also obtained.
Then there is the "inspiration" it may give people. Inspiration to get to know more about science in general because it is impressive how we were able to get it there. Certainly for young people this is invaluable towards the future.

Whenever someone doubts the "power of knowledge" I tell them this little story. In the very late 19th century there was a physicist called Max Planck who was given the task by a company to develop a light bulb that was more effective, one that used less power and gave more light. So he started researching stuff and ended up with discovering that energy is quantisized. Meaning that it comes in little lumps. There is a smallest amount of energy possible and all other energies are a multiple of that smallest amount.
This discovery led to a breakthrough in physics, quantum physics. This in turn opened up a whole new understanding of atoms, electrons, and atomic interactions. About 20 years later Einstein based himself on quantum physics to "discover" a mechanism in nature called "stimulated emission". It basically means that if a photon hit an atom just right the atom will release a second photon that has the same phase and polarization, meaning both photons can now hit other atoms which will make another one, leading to exponential growth of photons with the same phase. But a device like this could not yet be constructed at that time. It was only in the 1950s that a device like this was constructed.
It was named after the process it uses: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation or ... LASER.
There are lasers that can shine to the moon and back, or instantly evaporate rocks and metals. I think it's safe to say that when Planck back in 1900 got so drawn into his quantisation model the company that assigned him to create the lightbulb gave up on him. I'm sure this company could not have foreseen that what Planck was doing was building the foundations for the most powerful and efficient sources of light.

[XJDenton]

Get him to read this.

https://wtfnasa.com/

[Chino]

Obama will be calling at 8:00 PT

https://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Excellent, good examples and a fantastic link.

Well the thing is it's mainly about knowledge. It may lead to a better and deeper understanding in a lot of scientific fields. The obvious ones are of course geology, biochemistry and perhaps even biology, who knows. But there are numerous other fields. A better understanding and more knowledge of the technology needed not only to get it there but to design, develop and test it is also obtained.
Then there is the "inspiration" it may give people. Inspiration to get to know more about science in general because it is impressive how we were able to get it there. Certainly for young people this is invaluable towards the future.

Whenever someone doubts the "power of knowledge" I tell them this little story. In the very late 19th century there was a physicist called Max Planck who was given the task by a company to develop a light bulb that was more effective, one that used less power and gave more light. So he started researching stuff and ended up with discovering that energy is quantisized. Meaning that it comes in little lumps. There is a smallest amount of energy possible and all other energies are a multiple of that smallest amount.

This discovery led to a breakthrough in physics, quantum physics. This in turn opened up a whole new understanding of atoms, electrons, and atomic interactions. About 20 years later Einstein based himself on quantum physics to "discover" a mechanism in nature called "stimulated emission". It basically means that if a photon hit an atom just right the atom will release a second photon that has the same phase and polarization, meaning both photons can now hit other atoms which will make another one, leading to exponential growth of photons with the same phase. But a device like this could not yet be constructed at that time. It was only in the 1950s that a device like this was constructed. It was named after the process it uses: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation or ... LASER.

There are lasers that can shine to the moon and back, or instantly evaporate rocks and metals. I think it's safe to say that when Planck back in 1900 got so drawn into his quantisation model the company that assigned him to create the lightbulb gave up on him. I'm sure this company could not have foreseen that what Planck was doing was building the foundations for the most powerful and efficient sources of light.

I like the "power of knowledge" angle, because these are usually the kinds of people who think things were so much better back in their parents' day, when the world wasn't as complicated, you could pay off a mortgage in 5 years and live a relatively stress free life, in comparison, etc., etc.

Get him to read this.

https://wtfnasa.com/

Nice.  Good stuff.  Thanks guys, for the information.  I'm grateful to have a way to make myself better informed about this kind of stuff so that others might be as well.

[Chino]

Nice.  Good stuff.  Thanks guys, for the information.  I'm grateful to have a way to make myself better informed about this kind of stuff so that others might be as well.

I just think the vast majority of people don't want to be informed about anything. It really saddens me. People ask what they consider rhetorical questions all the time. When I begin to answer I see the look on their faces, or they just straight up say I wasn't asking. This happened yesterday at work when some IQ of 70 girl stated "I wonder what makes the sky blue instead of orange or pink"... I began to explain why the sky was in fact blue... I got a relatively angry response. I think the main reason why people don't like asking questions, or receiving an answer when they do, is because it makes them feel stupid. You know what.... good. I like when I feel stupid. It's something I don't feel often. When I do feel that way I am happy because it means I am about to learn something and expand what I know.

[Chino]

Obama will be calling at 8:00 PT

https://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl

Not sure if any of you were able to catch this... but Obama did a stellar job. He actually sounds like he is proud of NASA and not just saying it because it is the right thing to do. I don't want to make this political, but I can not see Romney having the same love and faith in NASA that Obama does, or science as a whole for that matter.

[Implode]

I just missed it.

But I agree with you about feeling stupid. I love that feeling when you realze, "OH. THAT's why that is! That's awesome."

[kári]

I just think the vast majority of people don't want to be informed about anything. It really saddens me. People ask what they consider rhetorical questions all the time. When I begin to answer I see the look on their faces, or they just straight up say I wasn't asking. This happened yesterday at work when some IQ of 70 girl stated "I wonder what makes the sky blue instead of orange or pink"... I began to explain why the sky was in fact blue... I got a relatively angry response. I think the main reason why people don't like asking questions, or receiving an answer when they do, is because it makes them feel stupid. You know what.... good. I like when I feel stupid. It's something I don't feel often. When I do feel that way I am happy because it means I am about to learn something and expand what I know.

In her defense polarisation is huge stretch for "the average joe". Even explaining that light is an electromagnetic wave is too far for a lot of people.

[Fiery Winds]

Depending on the person asking, you don't need to get that specific or technical.  You can tell a kid that it's due to the atmosphere.  For someone who understands that white light contains a spectrum of colors, you can say that the blue portion is absorbed by gas molecules in the atmosphere which scatters the blue light across the sky. 

[kári]

Well yeah but that's hardly satisfying for anyone... At least I would think.

[Fiery Winds]

I agree, but not everyone is interested in things like that.  My point was that the girl's question could have been answered without being above her head.

[kári]

Hm yeah but most of the time when people ask "why is the sky blue?" they want to know more than just the boiled-down explanation they probably already know. They're looking for a more satisfying answer which is why they ask the question in the first place. It's this huge gap that baffles me in physics sometimes. The utter simplicity and well-digested "dumbed-down" explanation of relatively simple phenomena are just "one level down" so complex. And then there's several more levels to go most of the times.

[Fiery Winds]

I don't know about you, but I either hear that specific question from children or brain-dead teenagers.  The latter is what Chino was talking about.

I'm not against "dumbed-down" or simplistic explanations for those who just want a rough idea of the concept.  If it's your main field of study, I'm sure it gets frustrating to have to continuously dig for a more satisfying and complete answer.