6 ms·

Not really, they didn't take the money to mars, the green papers we created to symbolize value are still hanging on here on earth, on the hands of the people th

Not really, they didn't take the money to mars, the green papers we created to symbolize value are still hanging on here on earth, on the hands of the people that one way or another helped to create this probe.

StavrosK 8y ago
I'm not particularly talking about NASA, but the green papers created to symbolize value don't mean anything. Thousands of man-hours that could have been spent on something else are gone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krastanov 8y ago
  I am a bit worried that I might be feeding a troll... but in case I am not: How is studying the universe, and in particular a prospective second home for humans, not virtuous?
  - blancheneige 8y ago
    as a physics PhD who spent 5 five years working with top cosmologists from around the world, I think I can provide a good answer: "studying the universe" today amounts to endlessly churning out rehashed fairy tale theories on arxiv in hopes of getting a publication no one will ever read only to obtain a grant that will let you do the exact same thing for another year.
    - krastanov 8y ago
      As a physics PhD student this answer of yours mystifies me. Even in the last ten years there has been exciting progress (even when restricting oneself to a subset of the field like cosmology or high energy or astronomy or the intersection of these three). Better knowledge of CMB, exciting new neutrino measurements, gravitational waves to name the stuff off the top of my head. But you were specifically complaining about studying Mars: if the goal is to give up and just live the most boring, safe and stagnated existence there is, then yes, we should stop exploring the solar system. Economic and cultural progress will slow down to a craw, but some people are content with that.
      - blancheneige 8y ago
        what you are referring to are the top 1% of researchers in their fields from whom you constantly hear about. the other 99% which account for the majority of grant money just keeps peddling nonsense for a living just so you can hear about their brand new idea of a dark cosmic gluon that could be produced by a yet unforeseen backreaction 10^18 ms after the big bang. give me a break. not that it's entirely their fault, given that it's either that or they'll be shunned by their "scientific" peers. I'm all for space exploration and pushing the boundaries of humanity. which is why I'm rooting for companies like Space X or Virgin Galactic, not a relic of the cold war that keeps sending over-funded space junks in orbit so a bunch of cowboys can study how the respiratory cycle of frogs are affected in zero g.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    I didn't say anything about what the money was spent on (in fact, I specifically said I'm not talking about NASA), I was addressing the fallacy that because the little pieces of paper are still on earth, that means that nothing of value could have been lost.
blancheneige 8y ago
yup, like I said, it's all gone. but I'm glad it was decided that redirecting part of my paycheck into that of engineers who make a living sending robots to a dead rock was a good idea.
- zipwitch 8y ago
  Yes, ultimaltely the same people whose decisions led to you being able to have an internet to connect to and whine on are the same ones who took a few dollars from your paycheck and are using them to explore Mars.
  - blancheneige 8y ago
    ultimately the same people as in literally not the same people? the one with a vision to improve and unleash a global network from its inception at DARPA or CERN vs those who made the choice to work on sending pointless rovers in outer space for the past 20+ years?
    - yongjik 8y ago
      You do know the vision of CERN is particle physics, don't you? ...so you are praising CERN for accidentally inventing WWW, and at the same time blaming NASA for not (yet) producing a tangible consumer technology, from a Martian probe that literally just landed?
      - blancheneige 8y ago
        you seem to be tacitly implying that better outcomes will come from those government subsidized endeavors rather than the revolution happening in the same field from the private sector. if that's your claim it's a ludicrous one. major impetus were provided by government research -- most of which knew where to stop once visionary entrepreneurs picked up the ball and took it to the next level.
- espadrine 8y ago
  While I acknowledge your disinterest for exploration, most of the good parts of your life would not exist if none of your ancestors had genes pushing them to explore. Adapting to land, surviving new climates, expanding worldwide helped establish global logistics that give you the lithium-ion batteries, the sandy processors, the oversea cables that allow blancheneige to watch Disney cartoons on demand. It so happens that the story doesn't end with just planetary Internet communications.

StavrosK 8y ago

I'm not particularly talking about NASA, but the green papers created to symbolize value don't mean anything. Thousands of man-hours that could have been spent on something else are gone.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
krastanov 8y ago
I am a bit worried that I might be feeding a troll... but in case I am not: How is studying the universe, and in particular a prospective second home for humans, not virtuous?
- blancheneige 8y ago
  as a physics PhD who spent 5 five years working with top cosmologists from around the world, I think I can provide a good answer: "studying the universe" today amounts to endlessly churning out rehashed fairy tale theories on arxiv in hopes of getting a publication no one will ever read only to obtain a grant that will let you do the exact same thing for another year.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    As a physics PhD student this answer of yours mystifies me. Even in the last ten years there has been exciting progress (even when restricting oneself to a subset of the field like cosmology or high energy or astronomy or the intersection of these three). Better knowledge of CMB, exciting new neutrino measurements, gravitational waves to name the stuff off the top of my head. But you were specifically complaining about studying Mars: if the goal is to give up and just live the most boring, safe and stagnated existence there is, then yes, we should stop exploring the solar system. Economic and cultural progress will slow down to a craw, but some people are content with that.
    - blancheneige 8y ago
      what you are referring to are the top 1% of researchers in their fields from whom you constantly hear about. the other 99% which account for the majority of grant money just keeps peddling nonsense for a living just so you can hear about their brand new idea of a dark cosmic gluon that could be produced by a yet unforeseen backreaction 10^18 ms after the big bang. give me a break. not that it's entirely their fault, given that it's either that or they'll be shunned by their "scientific" peers. I'm all for space exploration and pushing the boundaries of humanity. which is why I'm rooting for companies like Space X or Virgin Galactic, not a relic of the cold war that keeps sending over-funded space junks in orbit so a bunch of cowboys can study how the respiratory cycle of frogs are affected in zero g.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I didn't say anything about what the money was spent on (in fact, I specifically said I'm not talking about NASA), I was addressing the fallacy that because the little pieces of paper are still on earth, that means that nothing of value could have been lost.

blancheneige 8y ago

yup, like I said, it's all gone. but I'm glad it was decided that redirecting part of my paycheck into that of engineers who make a living sending robots to a dead rock was a good idea.

zipwitch 8y ago
Yes, ultimaltely the same people whose decisions led to you being able to have an internet to connect to and whine on are the same ones who took a few dollars from your paycheck and are using them to explore Mars.
- blancheneige 8y ago
  ultimately the same people as in literally not the same people? the one with a vision to improve and unleash a global network from its inception at DARPA or CERN vs those who made the choice to work on sending pointless rovers in outer space for the past 20+ years?
  - yongjik 8y ago
    You do know the vision of CERN is particle physics, don't you? ...so you are praising CERN for accidentally inventing WWW, and at the same time blaming NASA for not (yet) producing a tangible consumer technology, from a Martian probe that literally just landed?
    - blancheneige 8y ago
      you seem to be tacitly implying that better outcomes will come from those government subsidized endeavors rather than the revolution happening in the same field from the private sector. if that's your claim it's a ludicrous one. major impetus were provided by government research -- most of which knew where to stop once visionary entrepreneurs picked up the ball and took it to the next level.
espadrine 8y ago
While I acknowledge your disinterest for exploration, most of the good parts of your life would not exist if none of your ancestors had genes pushing them to explore. Adapting to land, surviving new climates, expanding worldwide helped establish global logistics that give you the lithium-ion batteries, the sandy processors, the oversea cables that allow blancheneige to watch Disney cartoons on demand. It so happens that the story doesn't end with just planetary Internet communications.