3 ms·

It also doesn't make sense to spend the ridiculously high amounts of money required to fly things through the air (what are we, birds?) when trains do just fine

by blhack 17y ago

It also doesn't make sense to spend the ridiculously high amounts of money required to fly things through the air (what are we, birds?) when trains do just fine. It also doesn't make sense to store all of those files in a mainframe when the filing cabinets do just fine. It also doesn't make sense to spend the absurd amounts of money required to develop a packet-based communication network when telegraphs and telephones do just fine. It also doesn't make sense to go to the moon with humans when we can just send a probe there.

run4yourlives 17y ago
It also doesn't make sense to spend the ridiculously high amounts of money required to fly things through the air (what are we, birds?) when trains do just fine. Yes it does, flying is faster. It also doesn't make sense to store all of those files in a mainframe when the filing cabinets do just fine. Yes it does, mainframes are smaller. It also doesn't make sense to spend the absurd amounts of money required to develop a packet-based communication network when telegraphs and telephones do just fine. Yes it does, PBC is more mobile It also doesn't make sense to go to the moon with humans when we can just send a probe there. You're right, this one makes no sense. Kinda like the shuttle.
- blhack 17y ago
  Yes it does, flying is faster. It wasn't at first. Yes it does, mainframes are smaller. They weren't at first. Yes it does, PBC is more mobile It wasn't at first. You seem to have completely missed the point. Technology doesn't happen overnight. It's all about costly, seemingly stupid incremental improvements. The shuttle doesn't make sense in its current form, what does make sense is the shuttle as an innovation springboard.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    There is really no reason however to have a space launch platform be reusable. The whole idea behind it is that it was supposed to make things easier and cheaper, and it's done exactly the opposite. I'm not missing the point at all. You, however have equated every innovation to be progress. Wise people realize that sometimes, despite our good intentions, innovations are sometimes negatives overall, and it's best to take a step back to take two more forward. In fact, once you get by the "cool" factor of the shuttle, what you end up seeing is that is has in fact been a large step backwards. It has prevented the one nation that could actually dream of furthering space exploration from doing exactly that. The US basically uses the shuttle to do what the first Mercury flights did when we were all watching black and white tv's. Think back to aviation. The wright brothers used a canard design on the Flyer. While ultimately proven to be safer and more fuel efficient, we needed to have a hundred years of non-canard aerospace development to realize everything between the Flyer and a Eurofighter. Fixating on canard designs may very well have held us in the balsa wood aircraft stage for 10-15 years. Perhaps, one day, the innovation that is the shuttle will come full circle. That day is not tomorrow though, and no amount of emotional attachment to the idea stops it from being anything but a costly and inefficient nightmare. (btw, both mainframes and PBC were smaller and more mobile right out of the gate, compared to the status quo.)
Zot95 17y ago
I guess you are trying to be funny, but I don't see the point. Your first 3 points are clearly false (the 4th is not clearly so). Are you suggesting that there is benefit to the pursuit itself? If so, then yes it is good that we developed the shuttle... but why continue to use it?

by blhack 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago

It also doesn't make sense to spend the ridiculously high amounts of money required to fly things through the air (what are we, birds?) when trains do just fine. Yes it does, flying is faster. It also doesn't make sense to store all of those files in a mainframe when the filing cabinets do just fine. Yes it does, mainframes are smaller. It also doesn't make sense to spend the absurd amounts of money required to develop a packet-based communication network when telegraphs and telephones do just fine. Yes it does, PBC is more mobile It also doesn't make sense to go to the moon with humans when we can just send a probe there. You're right, this one makes no sense. Kinda like the shuttle.

blhack 17y ago
Yes it does, flying is faster. It wasn't at first. Yes it does, mainframes are smaller. They weren't at first. Yes it does, PBC is more mobile It wasn't at first. You seem to have completely missed the point. Technology doesn't happen overnight. It's all about costly, seemingly stupid incremental improvements. The shuttle doesn't make sense in its current form, what does make sense is the shuttle as an innovation springboard.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  There is really no reason however to have a space launch platform be reusable. The whole idea behind it is that it was supposed to make things easier and cheaper, and it's done exactly the opposite. I'm not missing the point at all. You, however have equated every innovation to be progress. Wise people realize that sometimes, despite our good intentions, innovations are sometimes negatives overall, and it's best to take a step back to take two more forward. In fact, once you get by the "cool" factor of the shuttle, what you end up seeing is that is has in fact been a large step backwards. It has prevented the one nation that could actually dream of furthering space exploration from doing exactly that. The US basically uses the shuttle to do what the first Mercury flights did when we were all watching black and white tv's. Think back to aviation. The wright brothers used a canard design on the Flyer. While ultimately proven to be safer and more fuel efficient, we needed to have a hundred years of non-canard aerospace development to realize everything between the Flyer and a Eurofighter. Fixating on canard designs may very well have held us in the balsa wood aircraft stage for 10-15 years. Perhaps, one day, the innovation that is the shuttle will come full circle. That day is not tomorrow though, and no amount of emotional attachment to the idea stops it from being anything but a costly and inefficient nightmare. (btw, both mainframes and PBC were smaller and more mobile right out of the gate, compared to the status quo.)

Zot95 17y ago

I guess you are trying to be funny, but I don't see the point. Your first 3 points are clearly false (the 4th is not clearly so). Are you suggesting that there is benefit to the pursuit itself? If so, then yes it is good that we developed the shuttle... but why continue to use it?