NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Where no two people are likely to agree.

NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #1  Postby kennyc » Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:40 pm

Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #2  Postby Rob Lister » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:10 pm

I'll bite.  They're nice to have but essential?  Meh.  Mapping potential earth busters is nice but unless they have a feasible plan for preventing a collision, maybe it is best not to know.  :)

Shutting down their website for this newest Budget Crisistm (number 17 since 1979) is pure politics though; meant to invoke the exact reaction you're having Kenny.  So, Obama made you his bitch, Kenny. lol  But if you have a problem with it, see your president, as he is the one who decides what is and is not essential.

I suspect if there actually are essential services that NASA runs, like satcom or whatnot, they're still merrily up and running.

But shutting down White House tours?  Unfathomable!
Last edited by Rob Lister on Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Spline Reticulator
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: My own little world

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #3  Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:18 pm

Mere trivia until something can actually be done about it.*


  *Is Oleg talking about NASA or the US government?  
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8302
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #4  Postby kennyc » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:28 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Mere trivia until something can actually be done about it.*


  *Is Oleg talking about NASA or the US government?  


True, but I'd like to know so I can go out in style.  :lol:

wait....6666 posts! Wow!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #5  Postby Martin Brock » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:33 pm

"Potentially hit Earth" is incredible nonsense. Astronomers can tell you with considerable precision how closely any of these known asteroids approach the Earth, and practically all of them have no realistic potential to hit the Earth in this millennium.

But this propaganda is a perfect example of the disaster hysteria that politicians routinely use to fool their loyal rubes into bending over and taking another one "for the team" to enrich the politicians and their cronies.

Yes, I still think NASA is non-essential, and even if you think that the Near-Earth Object program (which tracks these asteroids) is essential, the budget for the NEO program is about $20 million, something like 0.1% of NASA's budget, and as recently as 2011, the NEO budget was only $6 million.

And unlike nasa.gov generally, the website of the NEO program is not offline.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #6  Postby Rob Lister » Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:06 pm

Neither are their FTP sites closed down with the lights off.  I just connected via filezilla to cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov and tx'ed a txt.

Image

So, they only shut down the public interface and are still heroically protecting us against asteroids with malicious intent.  :)
User avatar
Rob Lister
Spline Reticulator
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: My own little world

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #7  Postby nmblum » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:52 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Mere trivia until something can actually be done about it.*


  *Is Oleg talking about NASA or the US government?  


Don't knock trivia.
It makes the world go 'round, is the lubricant that greases the wheels of our civilization.... allowing us to imagine we are learning, teaching, having relationships.
Trivia fills our newspapers, our libraries, our movie screens, our radios.
The halls of legislative bodies around the world ring with trivia.  
Without trivia, television would occupy 10 minutes of our days.
And , marriages would collapse in eerie silence...
Humans would cease to relate at any recognizable level.
And the  internet.?
A 4 page memo.
And trivia allows me to compose and post this, and feel as if I am a writer, or a poet, or a social commentator.
Or a scientist.
And even a liberal., lifting the level of human intercourse as I trivialize.

NMB
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
As for your contemptful attitude towards philosophy, the very axioms upon which science rests are philosophical. Concepts like evidence, truth, and validation are all philosophical concepts, honed over the years by philosophers.
KennyC. replied: Wrong. Philosophy is dead, its time has passed. It needs to be buried, it stinks.
Frederick Douglass:" It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
nmblum
Has More Than 6K Posts
 
Posts: 6977
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #8  Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:09 pm

nmblum wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Mere trivia until something can actually be done about it.*


  *Is Oleg talking about NASA or the US government?  


Don't knock trivia.
It makes the world go 'round, is the lubricant that greases the wheels of our civilization.... allowing us to imagine we are learning, teaching, having relationships.
Trivia fills our newspapers, our libraries, our movie screens, our radios.
The halls of legislative bodies around the world ring with trivia.  
Without trivia, television would occupy 10 minutes of our days.
And , marriages would collapse in eerie silence...
Humans would cease to relate at any recognizable level.
And the  internet.?
A 4 page memo.
And trivia allows me to compose and post this, and feel as if I am a writer, or a poet, or a social commentator.
Or a scientist.
And even a liberal., lifting the level of human intercourse as I trivialize.

NMB

Not knocking it. Simply identifying as not needing funding while the baboons are pounding their chests.

Knocking trivia is, as you say, self-deprecation, as most of what passes for our own discourse falls into that category. Including this.
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8302
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #9  Postby nmblum » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:21 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
nmblum wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Mere trivia until something can actually be done about it.*


  *Is Oleg talking about NASA or the US government?  


Don't knock trivia.
It makes the world go 'round, is the lubricant that greases the wheels of our civilization.... allowing us to imagine we are learning, teaching, having relationships.
Trivia fills our newspapers, our libraries, our movie screens, our radios.
The halls of legislative bodies around the world ring with trivia.  
Without trivia, television would occupy 10 minutes of our days.
And , marriages would collapse in eerie silence...
Humans would cease to relate at any recognizable level.
And the  internet.?
A 4 page memo.
And trivia allows me to compose and post this, and feel as if I am a writer, or a poet, or a social commentator.
Or a scientist.
And even a liberal., lifting the level of human intercourse as I trivialize.

NMB

Not knocking it. Simply identifying as not needing funding while the baboons are pounding their chests.

Knocking trivia is, as you say, self-deprecation, as most of what passes for our own discourse falls into that category. Including this.

But that's okay.. we aren't screaming.
Either at each other, or at all.
"Serious" too often if not always leads to screaming.
But  here we are, having a pleasant bout of trivia...  non-recriminatory
trivia.  
In fact, I am tempted to start a thread on the damages, the horrors done, not to mention the icy silences, riven families, internecine strife not to mention World  Wars, as a result of demands to "be serious!!"

NMB
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
As for your contemptful attitude towards philosophy, the very axioms upon which science rests are philosophical. Concepts like evidence, truth, and validation are all philosophical concepts, honed over the years by philosophers.
KennyC. replied: Wrong. Philosophy is dead, its time has passed. It needs to be buried, it stinks.
Frederick Douglass:" It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
nmblum
Has More Than 6K Posts
 
Posts: 6977
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #10  Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:42 pm

nmblum wrote:In fact, I am tempted to start a thread on the damages, the horrors done, not to mention the icy silences, riven families, internecine strife not to mention World  Wars, as a result of demands to "be serious!!"

NMB

There is plenty of room between nihilism and self-aggrandizement for not taking things, or oneself, too seriously.

Besides, that's the perspective from which people are the funniest creatures.
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8302
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #11  Postby nmblum » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:58 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
nmblum wrote:In fact, I am tempted to start a thread on the damages, the horrors done, not to mention the icy silences, riven families, internecine strife not to mention World  Wars, as a result of demands to "be serious!!"

NMB

There is plenty of room between nihilism and self-aggrandizement for not taking things, or oneself, too seriously.

Besides, that's the perspective from which people are the funniest creatures.

Absolutely agreed upon.... although nihilism, is to me,  a consistent contempt for the possibilities in others, while giving one;s own a kind of pass.
And if there is anything in the world that should be encouraged... given government stipends, having celebratory days dedicated to them, hailed as saviors , it's people who are  genuinely funny.
Nor jokey, ha ha ha, people, but people who know that they,we, them, you, *I*,  are ridiculous.
And in the soup  together.
Gotta go now... have to find out if my 9 hour week, barely paid job, is on for the afternoon (as suggested yesterday) or whether the kids get to hang out on some corner for the  couple of hours, left to their own devices,  smoking weed, or using the time off  to make babies.
Which sounds, all things considered, a rather optimistic, above all, thing to do.

NMB
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
As for your contemptful attitude towards philosophy, the very axioms upon which science rests are philosophical. Concepts like evidence, truth, and validation are all philosophical concepts, honed over the years by philosophers.
KennyC. replied: Wrong. Philosophy is dead, its time has passed. It needs to be buried, it stinks.
Frederick Douglass:" It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”
nmblum
Has More Than 6K Posts
 
Posts: 6977
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #12  Postby vanderpoel » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:28 pm

You're teaching them not to make babies on some corner for two hours while not smoking weed?
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"
User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:01 am
Location: Honolulu

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #13  Postby Gord » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:44 pm

Martin Brock wrote:"Potentially hit Earth" is incredible nonsense. Astronomers can tell you with considerable precision how closely any of these known asteroids approach the Earth, and practically all of them have no realistic potential to hit the Earth in this millennium.

Not exactly.  Those are the potentially hazardous objects (PHOs):

An object is considered a PHO[1] if its minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) with respect to Earth is less than 0.05 AU (7,500,000 km; 4,600,000 mi) (approximately 19.5 lunar distances) and its diameter is at least 100 to 150 meters (330-500 ft). This is big enough to cause regional devastation to human settlements unprecedented in human history in the case of a land impact, or a major tsunami in the case of an ocean impact. Such impact events occur on average around once per 10,000 years. NEOWISE data estimates that there are 4,700 ± 1,500 potentially hazardous asteroids with a diameter greater than 100 meters.[2] As of 2012, an estimated 20 to 30 percent of these objects have been found.[2] Asteroids larger than 35 meters across can pose a threat to a town or city.[3]

While it's true that they individually have very little chance of hitting the Earth, they are collectively a threat.  Astronomers cannot predict their orbits as far out as a millenium due to gravitational perturbations:

During an asteroid's close approaches to planets or moons it will be subject to gravitational perturbation, modifying its orbit, and potentially changing a previously non-threatening asteroid into a PHA or vice versa. This is a reflection of the dynamic character of the Solar System.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #14  Postby Martin Brock » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:21 pm

Gord wrote:Not exactly.  Those are the potentially hazardous objects (PHOs):

According to your source, "Such impact events occur on average around once per 10,000 years." That's the frequency at which any of the objects hit the Earth. If we're discussing a particular object, the expected time until impact (if an impact ever occurs) is millions of years, and most of these objects are expected never to hit the Earth, because a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

Astronomers cannot predict their orbits as far out as a millenium due to gravitational perturbations:

I write, "Astronomers can tell you with considerable precision how closely any of these known asteroids approach the Earth, ..." This statement refers to their current orbit. I don't say that astronomers can predict orbits as far out as millenium. I rather say, "... and practically all of them have no realistic potential to hit the Earth in this millennium." In fact, all of them collectively have little potential to hit the Earth in this millenium. Your source says the same thing, exactly.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.

Again, even if you believe that the NEO program is an important contribution, this contribution is roughly 0.1% of NASA's budget, so you might as well say "the Federal Government's work" or "the United State's work" or even "the world's work" is an important contribution. The statement is true, but it's meaninglessly vague.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #15  Postby kennyc » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:22 pm

At least my son's project - Maven has been declared essential. :D

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7304.story
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #16  Postby Martin Brock » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:26 pm

I'm not shocked to discover that you have a family member paid by a NASA program, and I'm not shocked that you resort to this hysterical scare tactic involving a tiny NASA program rather than defend the essence of your son's far more costly program.

I propose canceling Maven and quadrupling the NEO budget. What do you say?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #17  Postby Rob Lister » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:45 pm

Martin Brock wrote:I propose canceling Maven and quadrupling the NEO budget. What do you say?


Pork!  Cut the NASA pork!

:lol:


We simply can't afford these Maven pork projects.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Spline Reticulator
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: My own little world

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #18  Postby Gord » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:30 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:Not exactly.  Those are the potentially hazardous objects (PHOs):

According to your source, "Such impact events occur on average around once per 10,000 years." That's the frequency at which any of the objects hit the Earth. If we're discussing a particular object, the expected time until impact (if an impact ever occurs) is millions of years, and most of these objects are expected never to hit the Earth...

That's why I said "not "exactly", and not just "no".  We don't know if any of the ones we have found will hit us, and if any of them ever will, we don't know when it will happen either.  That's why they are called "potentially hazardous objects".

...because a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

I'd like to hear more about that; do you have a link to more information?

Astronomers cannot predict their orbits as far out as a millenium due to gravitational perturbations:

I write, "Astronomers can tell you with considerable precision how closely any of these known asteroids approach the Earth, ..." This statement refers to their current orbit. I don't say that astronomers can predict orbits as far out as millenium. I rather say, "... and practically all of them have no realistic potential to hit the Earth in this millennium."

You have a funny way of reading your own sentences, but whatever.

In fact, all of them collectively have little potential to hit the Earth in this millenium. Your source says the same thing, exactly.

All of them collectively have "considerable" potential to hit the Earth.  If there's a PHO headed at us right now, we don't know it.  We have an estimate of "4,700 ± 1,500" such objects, and have found only around 30% of them so far.

We know they're out there, we know we'll be hit by some of them, we know the average is one significant event every 10,000 years.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.

Again, even if you believe that the NEO program is an important contribution, this contribution is roughly 0.1% of NASA's budget, so you might as well say "the Federal Government's work" or "the United State's work" or even "the world's work" is an important contribution. The statement is true, but it's meaninglessly vague.[/quote]
NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.  That is not "meaninglessly vague".  How that concerns NASA's budget or any other program which also contributes to Spaceguard doesn't change that fact, so I do not understand what you are trying to say:  Since it's specifically NASA's work detecting PHOs that we're discussing here, how does "the Federal Government's work" or "the United State's work" or even "the world's work" impact on that?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #19  Postby Gord » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:32 pm

kennyc wrote:At least my son's project - Maven has been declared essential. :D

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7304.story

Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN

:lol:

GROSS - "Get Rid Of Slimy girlS"
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee

Thanks from:
Kaepora Gaebora
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #20  Postby kennyc » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:52 pm

Gord wrote:
kennyc wrote:At least my son's project - Maven has been declared essential. :D

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7304.story

Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN

:lol:

GROSS - "Get Rid Of Slimy girlS"


IHA  -- I Hate Acronyms!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #21  Postby Gord » Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:20 pm

kennyc wrote:
Gord wrote:
kennyc wrote:At least my son's project - Maven has been declared essential. :D

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... 7304.story

Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN

:lol:

GROSS - "Get Rid Of Slimy girlS"


IHA  -- I Hate Acronyms!

OOI -- sO dO I
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #22  Postby Martin Brock » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:13 am

Gord wrote:That's why they are called "potentially hazardous objects".

Right. That's also why I say that no one of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next thousand years. I could have said the next million years as accurately.

...because a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

I'd like to hear more about that; do you have a link to more information?

No. You only need to realize that there's more space in directions other than a direction closer to the Earth. Unless you think that perturbations are biased in favor of a collision with the Earth, my statement follows. Why would unpredictable events favor a collision with the Earth? If random events conspire against the Earth, why are we here having this discussion? Why were we ever born?

You have a funny way of reading your own sentences, but whatever.

I read them the way I write them. You read them the way you want to dispute them.

In fact, all of them collectively have little potential to hit the Earth in this millenium. Your source says the same thing, exactly.

All of them collectively have "considerable" potential to hit the Earth.  If there's a PHO headed at us right now, we don't know it.  We have an estimate of "4,700 ± 1,500" such objects, and have found only around 30% of them so far.

Your own source says that all of them collectively strike the Earth every 10,000 years, i.e. it says that events associated with this type of collision occur every 10,000 years on the average.

We know they're out there, we know we'll be hit by some of them, we know the average is one significant event every 10,000 years.

Right. That's what we know, and that's what I say we know.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.  That is not "meaninglessly vague".

NASA's budget is $16 billion annually. The specific program that you're discussing here has a $20 million dollar budget. Describing a program with a $20 million budget as "NASA's work", a term describing a $16 billion budget, is vague by definition.

Again, the NEO program is also part of all Federal government spending, and it's part of all spending in the United States, and it's part of all spending by everyone on Earth, but this fact does not imply that all spending on Earth protects anything, even if we assume that the NEO program protects people from asteroid/comet impacts, which is a questionable proposition anyway.

But I'll concede for the sake of argument that the NEO program is essential and that the United States government absolutely should fund this program at current levels. I'll even concede that the Congress should quadruple funding for this program. Quadrupling funding for this program still leaves "NASA's work" consuming $16 billion annually, practically none of which contributes to the NEO program, so a defense of this program has practically nothing to do with defending "NASA's work".
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #23  Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:44 am

If an asteroid is in an orbit that will not strike the Earth (P=0), then any perturbation can increase the probability, because it cannot decrease it. It could leave it at 0 though.
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8302
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #24  Postby Martin Brock » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:55 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:If an asteroid is in an orbit that will not strike the Earth (P=0), then any perturbation can increase the probability, because it cannot decrease it. It could leave it at 0 though.

Your statement is an irrelevant tautology. It applies to every object in the Universe that currently is not on a trajectory striking the Earth.

A perturbation could increase or decrease the asteroid's closest approach to the center of the Earth. In three dimensional space, why would you expect a perturbation more likely to decrease this distance? Suppose the current closest approach is 50 Earth radii (closer than the Moon), and do the trigonometry. The probability of decreasing the closest approach is roughly arctan(1/50)/Pi (0.006). The threshold for a PHO is over a thousand Earth radii (0.05 AU). Do that trigonometry.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #25  Postby Gord » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:14 am

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:That's why they are called "potentially hazardous objects".

Right. That's also why I say that no one of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next thousand years. I could have said the next million years as accurately.

Your second statement would be more inaccurate.  One of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years; we just don't know which one.

...because a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

I'd like to hear more about that; do you have a link to more information?

No. You only need to realize that there's more space in directions other than a direction closer to the Earth. Unless you think that perturbations are biased in favor of a collision with the Earth, my statement follows. Why would unpredictable events favor a collision with the Earth? If random events conspire against the Earth, why are we here having this discussion? Why were we ever born?

It would depend on which gravitational object was causing the perturbation.  Since we're talking about Near Earth Objects, we could easily be talking about perturbations caused by approaching close to Earth, and in that case I'd like to know if such a thing were more likely to move the object's orbit further from the Earth or closer toward it.

You have a funny way of reading your own sentences, but whatever.

I read them the way I write them. You read them the way you want to dispute them.

No, you read them the way they appear in your head; I read them the way they appear on the screen.  The only parts I want to dispute are the parts that you write wrong.

In fact, all of them collectively have little potential to hit the Earth in this millenium. Your source says the same thing, exactly.

All of them collectively have "considerable" potential to hit the Earth.  If there's a PHO headed at us right now, we don't know it.  We have an estimate of "4,700 ± 1,500" such objects, and have found only around 30% of them so far.

Your own source says that all of them collectively strike the Earth every 10,000 years, i.e. it says that events associated with this type of collision occur every 10,000 years on the average.

Yes.  And we don't know where most of them are right now, or when the next strike is going to happen; we just know that the chances of being struck are higher the more time we give.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.  That is not "meaninglessly vague".

NASA's budget is $16 billion annually. The specific program that you're discussing here has a $20 million dollar budget. Describing a program with a $20 million budget as "NASA's work", a term describing a $16 billion budget, is vague by definition.

The percentage of NASA's funding that goes into an important contribution is irrelevant to how important that contribution turns out to be.  The work that NASA contributes to Spaceguard is by definition NASA's work.  The only thing that is vague here seems to be your understanding of the English language.

Again, the NEO program is also part of all Federal government spending, and it's part of all spending in the United States, and it's part of all spending by everyone on Earth, but this fact does not imply that all spending on Earth protects anything, even if we assume that the NEO program protects people from asteroid/comet impacts, which is a questionable proposition anyway.

What the hell are you trying to say here, and what does it have to do with anything I've posted?

Spaceguard is a collected effort to discover NEOs.  Many people contribute to it.  NASA is an important contributor because of, for instance, its Near Earth Orbit Program.

But I'll concede for the sake of argument that the NEO program is essential and that the United States government absolutely should fund this program at current levels. I'll even concede that the Congress should quadruple funding for this program. Quadrupling funding for this program still leaves "NASA's work" consuming $16 billion annually, practically none of which contributes to the NEO program, so a defense of this program has practically nothing to do with defending "NASA's work".

What the {!#%@}?  The Near Earth Orbit Program IS NASA'S work!  How can you claim that defending NASA's work has nothing to do with defending "NASA's work"?  Do you think putting quotation marks around it makes it mean something other than what I've been talking about during this entire discussion?

And why do you keep bringing up funding for other programs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee

Thanks from:
Daedalus
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #26  Postby Daedalus » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:06 am

Gord wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:That's why they are called "potentially hazardous objects".

Right. That's also why I say that no one of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next thousand years. I could have said the next million years as accurately.

Your second statement would be more inaccurate.  One of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years; we just don't know which one.

...because a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

I'd like to hear more about that; do you have a link to more information?

No. You only need to realize that there's more space in directions other than a direction closer to the Earth. Unless you think that perturbations are biased in favor of a collision with the Earth, my statement follows. Why would unpredictable events favor a collision with the Earth? If random events conspire against the Earth, why are we here having this discussion? Why were we ever born?

It would depend on which gravitational object was causing the perturbation.  Since we're talking about Near Earth Objects, we could easily be talking about perturbations caused by approaching close to Earth, and in that case I'd like to know if such a thing were more likely to move the object's orbit further from the Earth or closer toward it.

You have a funny way of reading your own sentences, but whatever.

I read them the way I write them. You read them the way you want to dispute them.

No, you read them the way they appear in your head; I read them the way they appear on the screen.  The only parts I want to dispute are the parts that you write wrong.

In fact, all of them collectively have little potential to hit the Earth in this millenium. Your source says the same thing, exactly.

All of them collectively have "considerable" potential to hit the Earth.  If there's a PHO headed at us right now, we don't know it.  We have an estimate of "4,700 ± 1,500" such objects, and have found only around 30% of them so far.

Your own source says that all of them collectively strike the Earth every 10,000 years, i.e. it says that events associated with this type of collision occur every 10,000 years on the average.

Yes.  And we don't know where most of them are right now, or when the next strike is going to happen; we just know that the chances of being struck are higher the more time we give.

NASA's work is an important contribution to Spaceguard.  That is not "meaninglessly vague".

NASA's budget is $16 billion annually. The specific program that you're discussing here has a $20 million dollar budget. Describing a program with a $20 million budget as "NASA's work", a term describing a $16 billion budget, is vague by definition.

The percentage of NASA's funding that goes into an important contribution is irrelevant to how important that contribution turns out to be.  The work that NASA contributes to Spaceguard is by definition NASA's work.  The only thing that is vague here seems to be your understanding of the English language.

Again, the NEO program is also part of all Federal government spending, and it's part of all spending in the United States, and it's part of all spending by everyone on Earth, but this fact does not imply that all spending on Earth protects anything, even if we assume that the NEO program protects people from asteroid/comet impacts, which is a questionable proposition anyway.

What the hell are you trying to say here, and what does it have to do with anything I've posted?

Spaceguard is a collected effort to discover NEOs.  Many people contribute to it.  NASA is an important contributor because of, for instance, its Near Earth Orbit Program.

But I'll concede for the sake of argument that the NEO program is essential and that the United States government absolutely should fund this program at current levels. I'll even concede that the Congress should quadruple funding for this program. Quadrupling funding for this program still leaves "NASA's work" consuming $16 billion annually, practically none of which contributes to the NEO program, so a defense of this program has practically nothing to do with defending "NASA's work".

What the {!#%@}?  The Near Earth Orbit Program IS NASA'S work!  How can you claim that defending NASA's work has nothing to do with defending "NASA's work"?  Do you think putting quotation marks around it makes it mean something other than what I've been talking about during this entire discussion?

And why do you keep bringing up funding for other programs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about?



Welcome to the stage of one "Libertarian's" cognitive dissonance. :lol:
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)
User avatar
Daedalus
Ave Atque Vale
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:38 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #27  Postby moth1ne » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:38 am

I can see that this photo is in a way propaganda.  However, I find that defunding NASA would be completely stupid.  Space exploration is an important science.  Definitely considering how little NASA actually asks for (maybe take some funding away from the DoD?... Just a thought).  Remember, the applications of science may come years or even centuries later.  Medical science sure has come a long way... Remember when the cure for the bubonic plague was a pocket full of posies and a bible?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

Thanks from:
kennyc
User avatar
moth1ne
theyscanhearsmythots
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Washington

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #28  Postby Martin Brock » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:28 am

Gord wrote:Your second statement would be more inaccurate.  One of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years; we just don't know which one.

Neither statement is inaccurate. One of thousands of very unlikely events can occur despite the fact that each event is very unlikely. I never anywhere deny that one of the objects is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years. I explicitly and repeatedly concede this point. I even suggest quadrupling the NEO budget for this reason, while you continue to defend "NASA's work" despite the fact that "NASA's work" describes an expenditure of $16 billion while the NEO program consumes only $20 million.

It would depend on which gravitational object was causing the perturbation.

The perturbations are unpredictable. That's the whole point of "potentially hazardous".

Since we're talking about Near Earth Objects, we could easily be talking about perturbations caused by approaching close to Earth, and in that case I'd like to know if such a thing were more likely to move the object's orbit further from the Earth or closer toward it.

We're talking about objects with orbits passing within 0.05 astronomical units (one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun).

A gravitational interaction with the Earth need not move an object's orbit closer to the Earth. These objects aren't orbiting the Earth. They're orbiting the Sun. An interaction with the Earth implies that the system is a 3-body problem, which is why the effect is unpredictable.

If perturbations systematically decrease an object's closest approach to the Earth, then far more of these objects could be expected to strike the Earth. Fortunately, the bias you assume here does not exist. Near Earth Objects are not out to get the Earth. They just happen to pass within 0.05 AU of the Earth on their current orbit of the Sun.

I read them the way I write them. You read them the way you want to dispute them.

No, you read them the way they appear in your head;

I also write them the way they appear in my head, so the "No" in your statement is nonsensical.

What the {!#%@}?  The Near Earth Orbit Program IS NASA'S work!  How can you claim that defending NASA's work has nothing to do with defending "NASA's work"?

I don't say "nothing". I say "practically nothing". You say "nothing" and then attribute your illogical generalization to me. It's called a "straw man argument".

Again (and again and again), "NASA's work" describes a $16 billion dollar program. "NEO's work" describes a $20 million program that is a subset of "NASA's work". NEO's work is also a subset of Federal government's work, and it's a subset of the Earth's work and the Universe's work.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:03 pm, edited 6 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #29  Postby Martin Brock » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:38 am

Daedalus wrote:Welcome to the stage of one "Libertarian's" cognitive dissonance. :lol:

You're obviously the one guided by ideology here. You don't address a single substantive point. You simply apply an ideological label and stop thinking.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #30  Postby Rob Lister » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:50 pm

moth1ne wrote:However, I find that defunding NASA would be completely stupid.


Nobody suggested defunding NASA.  kennyc brought us some political rhetoric that turns out to be nothing more than shutting down NASA's public facing vanity website for what appears to be political reasons.  The servers on which that website runs are [demonstrably] still up and running and operating just fine.

So what do you figure they saved by shutting down the website?  Hell, I'd be happy to host a mirror for it on one of my vanity sites.  I'll even spring for a unique domain name.  My gift to kennyc.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Spline Reticulator
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: My own little world

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #31  Postby Daedalus » Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:27 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:Welcome to the stage of one "Libertarian's" cognitive dissonance. :lol:

You're obviously the one guided by ideology here. You don't address a single substantive point. You simply apply an ideological label and stop thinking.


A very evolved form of, "I know you are, but what am I?" ;)
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Thanks from:
kennyc
User avatar
Daedalus
Ave Atque Vale
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:38 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #32  Postby moth1ne » Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:53 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
moth1ne wrote:However, I find that defunding NASA would be completely stupid.


Nobody suggested defunding NASA.  kennyc brought us some political rhetoric that turns out to be nothing more than shutting down NASA's public facing vanity website for what appears to be political reasons.  The servers on which that website runs are [demonstrably] still up and running and operating just fine.

So what do you figure they saved by shutting down the website?  Hell, I'd be happy to host a mirror for it on one of my vanity sites.  I'll even spring for a unique domain name.  My gift to kennyc.

Where are you getting this information?  I have heard as much as 97% of NASA employees are not working... Which is more people than the amount of people running the website...  unless I have missed your point.  The picture I think is suggesting that there is a certain stigma in political circles *cough libertarians, repubs*cough that see NASA as unessential and a waste of funds.  So this is why I made the statement, "defunding NASA would be completely stupid".
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World

Thanks from:
Daedalus, kennyc
User avatar
moth1ne
theyscanhearsmythots
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 1704
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:41 pm
Location: Washington

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #33  Postby kennyc » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:00 am

moth1ne wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:
moth1ne wrote:However, I find that defunding NASA would be completely stupid.


Nobody suggested defunding NASA.  kennyc brought us some political rhetoric that turns out to be nothing more than shutting down NASA's public facing vanity website for what appears to be political reasons.  The servers on which that website runs are [demonstrably] still up and running and operating just fine.

So what do you figure they saved by shutting down the website?  Hell, I'd be happy to host a mirror for it on one of my vanity sites.  I'll even spring for a unique domain name.  My gift to kennyc.

Where are you getting this information?  I have heard as much as 97% of NASA employees are not working... Which is more people than the amount of people running the website.


Truth. Just the essential (i.e. ongoing missions and selected projects like MAVEN) personnel are working as far as I know.

I'm definitely missing APOD. :(

And today I went searching for some public domain images of the Milky Way and nothing doing since the Websites are down.

And if Rob thinks he can just access and duplicate the Nasa websites then let's see him try. What a bozo.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #34  Postby Gord » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:08 am

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:Your second statement would be more inaccurate.  One of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years; we just don't know which one.

Neither statement is inaccurate.

They're both inaccurate to varying degrees.

One of thousands of very unlikely events can occur despite the fact that each event is very unlikely. I never anywhere deny that one of the objects is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years. I explicitly and repeatedly concede this point.

Good, then you admit that it is inaccurate to state "no one of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next thousand years".  Just look at your two statements:

"no one of them is likely to hit the Earth in the next thousand years. I could have said the next million years as accurately"
"one of the objects is likely to hit the Earth in the next ten thousand years. I explicitly and repeatedly concede this point."

They are contradictory.

I even suggest quadrupling the NEO budget for this reason, while you continue to defend "NASA's work" despite the fact that "NASA's work" describes an expenditure of $16 billion while the NEO program consumes only $20 million.

No, I have never done what you are claiming.  I have repeatedly attributed importance to NASA's work as it contributes to Spaceguard.  You, on the other hand, have repeatedly brought up the $16 billion and $20 million budgets.

It would depend on which gravitational object was causing the perturbation.

The perturbations are unpredictable.

But you made a prediction!

Since we're talking about Near Earth Objects, we could easily be talking about perturbations caused by approaching close to Earth, and in that case I'd like to know if such a thing were more likely to move the object's orbit further from the Earth or closer toward it.

We're talking about objects with orbits passing within 0.05 astronomical units (one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun).

A gravitational interaction with the Earth need not move an object's orbit closer to the Earth. These objects aren't orbiting the Earth. They're orbiting the Sun. An interaction with the Earth implies that the system is a 3-body problem, which is why the effect is unpredictable.

Fine, they're unpredictable.  I accept your withdrawal of the statement that a gravitational perturbation most likely moves their orbits further from the Earth.

If perturbations systematically decrease an object's closest approach to the Earth, then far more of these objects could be expected to strike the Earth.

You appear to be using circular reasoning to back up your earlier prediction.  However, if perturbations systematically decrease objects' closest approaches to the Earth right now, then it is an explanation of the number that do strike, not a declaration that more are striking.

Fortunately, the bias you assume here does not exist. Near Earth Objects are not out to get the Earth.

Now you're off in woo-woo land.  I never suggested anyone or anything was "out to get the Earth".  That's in the area of supernatural beliefs, which (to judge from our previous discussions) are your domain, not mine.

I read them the way I write them. You read them the way you want to dispute them.

No, you read them the way they appear in your head;

I also write them the way they appear in my head, so the "No" in your statement is nonsensical.

Unfortunately it appears that there is a disconnect between your head and your keyboard, because your writings do not mean what you take them to mean.  That is why my "No" makes sense to everyone but you.

What the {!#%@}?  The Near Earth Orbit Program IS NASA'S work!  How can you claim that defending NASA's work has nothing to do with defending "NASA's work"?

I don't say "nothing". I say "practically nothing". You say "nothing" and then attribute your illogical generalization to me. It's called a "straw man argument".

Alright then, how can you claim that defending NASA's work has "practically" nothing to do with defending "NASA's work"?

Again (and again and again), "NASA's work" describes a $16 billion dollar program.

You keep trying to make this about something it's not.  We've been talking about PHOs, NEOs, and Spaceguard.  When I write about NASA's work in regard to those things, you should not attempt to conflate anything else into the mixture, yet you keep doing exactly that.  You are being dishonest.  I can only conclude you are doing it on purpose, to intentionally muddy the issue.  Why else would you keep bringing up funding for other programs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
The ongoing failures of Dr. Sweatpee

Thanks from:
kennyc
User avatar
Gord
up the stairs creepily
Has No Life
 
Posts: 19099
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Transcona

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #35  Postby Martin Brock » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:20 pm

Gord wrote:You keep trying to make this about something it's not.  We've been talking about PHOs, NEOs, and Spaceguard.  When I write about NASA's work in regard to those things, you should not attempt to conflate anything else into the mixture, yet you keep doing exactly that.  You are being dishonest.

In reality, when you describe the NEO as "NASA's work" in a thread disputing the proposition that "NASA is 'Non-Essential'" with reference to civilization destroying asteroids, you conflate the NEO with everything else that NASA does. You then characterize as "dishonest" someone emphasizing the tiny share of NASA's budget that the NEO represents.

By contrast, I have consistently discussed the $20 million NEO program in isolation from the rest of NASA's $16 billion budget, and this refusal to conflate the two is what you call "dishonest".
Last edited by Martin Brock on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #36  Postby Daedalus » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:30 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:You keep trying to make this about something it's not.  We've been talking about PHOs, NEOs, and Spaceguard.  When I write about NASA's work in regard to those things, you should not attempt to conflate anything else into the mixture, yet you keep doing exactly that.  You are being dishonest.

In reality, when you describe the NEO as "NASA's work" in a thread disputing the proposition that "NASA is 'Non-Essential'" with reference to civilization destroying asteroids, you conflate the NEO with everything else that NASA does. You then accuse someone emphasizing the tiny share of NASA's budget that the NEO represents as "dishonest".

By contrast, I have consistently discussed the $20 million NEO program in isolation from the rest of NASA's $16 billion budget, and this refusal to conflate the two is what you call "dishonest".


The infrastructure of telescopes, personnel, computers, communication, satellites, and expertise that NASA provides courtesy of that $16 billion is essential to keeping the $20 million program functioning. Pretending that you can isolate one from the other is laughable to anyone who isn't blinded by their desire for it to be so.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)
User avatar
Daedalus
Ave Atque Vale
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:38 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #37  Postby Martin Brock » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:33 pm

Daedalus wrote:The infrastructure of telescopes, personnel, computers, communication, satellites, and expertise that NASA provides courtesy of that $16 billion is essential to keeping the $20 million program functioning. Pretending that you can isolate one from the other is laughable to anyone who isn't blinded by their desire for it to be so.

This statement is nonsense. The space station contributes nothing to the NEO program and costs many orders of magnitude more. The Maven program also contributes nothing to the NEO program.

The GPS also contributes nothing to the NEO program, but the GPS is nonetheless valuable, though it's not part of NASA's budget at all.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #38  Postby kennyc » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:36 pm

Daedalus wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:You keep trying to make this about something it's not.  We've been talking about PHOs, NEOs, and Spaceguard.  When I write about NASA's work in regard to those things, you should not attempt to conflate anything else into the mixture, yet you keep doing exactly that.  You are being dishonest.

In reality, when you describe the NEO as "NASA's work" in a thread disputing the proposition that "NASA is 'Non-Essential'" with reference to civilization destroying asteroids, you conflate the NEO with everything else that NASA does. You then accuse someone emphasizing the tiny share of NASA's budget that the NEO represents as "dishonest".

By contrast, I have consistently discussed the $20 million NEO program in isolation from the rest of NASA's $16 billion budget, and this refusal to conflate the two is what you call "dishonest".


The infrastructure of telescopes, personnel, computers, communication, satellites, and expertise that NASA provides courtesy of that $16 billion is essential to keeping the $20 million program functioning. Pretending that you can isolate one from the other is laughable to anyone who isn't blinded by their desire for it to be so.


And it is peanuts compared to everything else:
http://www.universetoday.com/31470/8-ri ... as-budget/
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

Thanks from:
Daedalus
User avatar
kennyc
The Dank Side of the Moon
Has No Life
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #39  Postby Daedalus » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:37 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:The infrastructure of telescopes, personnel, computers, communication, satellites, and expertise that NASA provides courtesy of that $16 billion is essential to keeping the $20 million program functioning. Pretending that you can isolate one from the other is laughable to anyone who isn't blinded by their desire for it to be so.

This statement is nonsense. The space station contributes nothing to the NEO program and costs many orders of magnitude more.


That station could potentially be essential if a NEO were detected, assuming that you are someone who thinks intervention to deflect such an object is the purpose of that program. Even more, it's part of the ongoing mission which keeps NASA moving forward, more and more able to actually deal with a NEO if it were to arise. It is, in essence, part of the R&D effort... which does cost, sure.

Anything more substantial to the central issue that you pretend a sub-program exists in isolation of the larger entity?
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)
User avatar
Daedalus
Ave Atque Vale
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:38 pm

Re: NASA is 'Non-Essential'

Post #40  Postby Martin Brock » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:39 pm

kennyc wrote:And it is peanuts compared to everything else:
http://www.universetoday.com/31470/8-ri ... as-budget/

Every line item is peanuts compared to everything else. The point here is that the NEO program is peanuts compared to NASA's budget, much less than a percent, so it has practically nothing to do with the essentiallness of NASA's budget. If you want to say that the Maven program is essential for some reason, you should defend the Maven program rather than confusing it with the NEO program, which is very clearly what you're doing here.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.
User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 5K Posts
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Next

Return to Politics and Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

MIB
MIB
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site! MIB