6 ms·

I think that the following comment I wrote on an analogous story a while ago helps to frame this in a better context: """ I have been obsessed with the Mercury

I think that the following comment I wrote on an analogous story a while ago helps to frame this in a better context: """ I have been obsessed with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs since childhood and I've read the first hand accounts of astronauts, flight directors, engineers, administrators, and journalists covering the programs. What has consistently struck me is that although the programs were marketed - if you may - along the lines of their exciting thrust into the unknown, the programs were executed based upon a cold rational calculus that extended sabre rattling and the grounds of engagement beyond the surface of our planet. Yes, for me it might be one of the greatest achievements of humanity, but for the people paying for the show all of that work was for one thing and one thing only; to claim the high ground swiftly and decisively before the enemy. For anyone with the ability to put a capsule into orbit and to retrieve it, also possessed the ability to spy on the other party, safely launch and drop a nuclear warhead into the other party's major cities, and one-up the enemy in a show of technical prowess and strength - something that would persuade those on the fence to pick the right side if it were. That's what these programs were sadly all about and that's why they were ended once the high ground was decisively seized. The reason why there isn't an Apollo-esque or Manhattan-esque thrust towards landing on Mars is because there is no substantial tactical, economic, or political advantage to be gained from the act. Sure in the long term there will be amazing pay-offs if we open up the solar system and expand outwards, but right now in the minds of the people who are actually cutting the cheques that pay-off is too distant, too abstract, too foolhardy, and too unsettling to justify any kind of support. Now some people choose to rue the cause behind our current Earth-bound civilization, but I think this is actually a good thing. It ensures that when we do manage to find a way to reach out to the stars we will do it for the right reasons and our exploration will continue from one frontier to another because of that fact. """ Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6653483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6653483

moccajoghurt 13y ago
On a side note: Why do you quote """this way"""?
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Python habits, I assume.
- pekk 13y ago
  While it's not necessary, it distinguishes quotes from within the text you pasted from the quotes you are using to encapsulate the whole text.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    Double and single quotation marks not good enough? Maybe y'all should have paid more attention in humanities courses.
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      It's another way of accomplishing the same thing! What does it matter? I don't head down to the Deep South (United States) and make fun of people for their Southern accents, asking them why my own habitual way of speaking isn't "good enough" for them. It's the way they talk, and it works. Talk about pretentious.
      - wavefunction 13y ago
        >>Talk about pretentious. Yes, let's talk about pretentiousness. Like the pretentiousness involved in ignoring existing grammar structures that are accepted by everyone in favor of whatever you think works and then expect everyone else to conform your unique usage. Take a good long look at yourself.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        So ruthlessly conform to the status quo(te), or be pretentious? Call me pretentious. Though the intent of the quoting style may have been unclear before it was explained, I now understand the utility. Would double-quotes have worked just fine? Probably. But so did todayiamme's method. Does it offer anything over double-quotes? Maybe not. But why shit on the guy because he did something differently than most other people would have? The guy didn't ask you or anybody else to approve of or make use of his own style. If it's so offensive to you, don't read it. In this case, it just doesn't matter. It really doesn't.
ansible 13y ago
[...] safely launch and drop a nuclear warhead into the other party's major cities, [...] For those not aware, the Saturn launch vehicle series was the first to not explicitly be based on missile technology. The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan series were primarily developed for launching ballistic missiles and then adapted for scientific purposes. The Shuttle too, was intended for DoD launches, and was used for a few of them.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  Pretty much all of the shuttle's engineering stupidity was due to DoD requirements.
  - tanzam75 13y ago
    The wings were dictated by DoD requirements, and the size of the Shuttle almost doubled. But the idea of putting it on the side of the fuel tank, where insulation could fall down and damage it -- that configuration predated the DoD-driven doubling in size. See: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p219.gif http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p219.gi... It was already a bad design, it just got worse when the DoD got involved. It needed to be a lot smaller -- small enough to fit on top of the stack. And there was no need to risk astronauts' lives to launch payload -- use an unmanned launcher for that.
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Putting it on the top of the stack would prevent the first stage engines from being reused.
      - tanzam75 13y ago
        > Putting it on the top of the stack would prevent the first stage engines from being reused. That's true, but reusability was the wrong goal. It forced a bad design to be adopted. It also led directly to the wishful thinking (50 flights per year!) that caused the schedule pressure on the Challenger. The actual goal should've been low cost. Instead of designing the most awesome closed-cycle engine that we could, we should've mass-produced a low-tech and low-cost engine. That's what the Russians did, and that's what SpaceX is doing today.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I just finished reading the book "Digital Apollo". I found the tale it related quite disappointing, because of how many technical decisions were based on the need to have the prototypical "American hero" with a cowboy / fighter pilot mentality at the controls. It described many situations when rather than have something that is more advanced technically and likely more reliable and safe, they wanted to give the image to the public and to the pilots that the men were truly "flying" their spacecraft to the moon.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  You can see this happen in the movie, "The Right Stuff", wherein John Glenn and the other astronauts insist the spacecraft must have windows so that they can pilot it. The conversation demonstrates how the engineers and the astronauts had totally different ideas of how it was supposed to work.
BlackDeath3 13y ago
This is so sad to me. If there is no political pissing contest to be had, the people in-charge don't care to do it. Why is curiosity not enough? Why must we all be more concerned about who has more nukes than about the 99.999%+ of space out there that we've never touched? Yeah, yeah, I know. Something about human nature...
- ivanca 13y ago
  All nations existences are completely arbitrary -besides the ability to kill or exile previous residents-. Therefore one of the few common goals of the people inside the most rich of those arbitrary separations is to have the most advanced and numerous weaponry; everything else is open to discussion and that sadly includes science that is not clearly towards that goal.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  Political mindset: Funding a pure science project won't help me win my next election. Now where's my intern? So long as space travel depends on politicians, this'll be the case, with some rare exceptions. Even Columbus had to justify the expense of sending his ships on an exploration cruise heading West across the Atlantic (trade with India).
return0 13y ago
It was kind of interesting when the two big Brain-related initiatives were announced last year, first a European one and then the American one as a response. Now, the circumstances are completely different than they were during the cold war, but I kind of hope there is enough competition to propel both projects.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  Makes sense. Having "won" the high ground, but then abandoned it ... you can bet if a Chinese tykonaut set foot on the Moon, Congress would pay top dollar to establish a base ... and it would be before the next election cycle, none of this "in the next 15 to 20 years" crap. By the way, which initiatives are you referring to?
  - return0 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative
craigching 13y ago
We really need some Martian terrorists so we can expand the "War on Terror" to interplanetary foes and fight them "over there" instead of "on our soil." To be clear /s :p

moccajoghurt 13y ago

On a side note: Why do you quote """this way"""?

Pxtl 13y ago
Python habits, I assume.
pekk 13y ago
While it's not necessary, it distinguishes quotes from within the text you pasted from the quotes you are using to encapsulate the whole text.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  Double and single quotation marks not good enough? Maybe y'all should have paid more attention in humanities courses.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    It's another way of accomplishing the same thing! What does it matter? I don't head down to the Deep South (United States) and make fun of people for their Southern accents, asking them why my own habitual way of speaking isn't "good enough" for them. It's the way they talk, and it works. Talk about pretentious.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      >>Talk about pretentious. Yes, let's talk about pretentiousness. Like the pretentiousness involved in ignoring existing grammar structures that are accepted by everyone in favor of whatever you think works and then expect everyone else to conform your unique usage. Take a good long look at yourself.
      - BlackDeath3 13y ago
        So ruthlessly conform to the status quo(te), or be pretentious? Call me pretentious. Though the intent of the quoting style may have been unclear before it was explained, I now understand the utility. Would double-quotes have worked just fine? Probably. But so did todayiamme's method. Does it offer anything over double-quotes? Maybe not. But why shit on the guy because he did something differently than most other people would have? The guy didn't ask you or anybody else to approve of or make use of his own style. If it's so offensive to you, don't read it. In this case, it just doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

ansible 13y ago

[...] safely launch and drop a nuclear warhead into the other party's major cities, [...] For those not aware, the Saturn launch vehicle series was the first to not explicitly be based on missile technology. The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan series were primarily developed for launching ballistic missiles and then adapted for scientific purposes. The Shuttle too, was intended for DoD launches, and was used for a few of them.

rbanffy 13y ago
Pretty much all of the shuttle's engineering stupidity was due to DoD requirements.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  The wings were dictated by DoD requirements, and the size of the Shuttle almost doubled. But the idea of putting it on the side of the fuel tank, where insulation could fall down and damage it -- that configuration predated the DoD-driven doubling in size. See: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p219.gif http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p219.gi... It was already a bad design, it just got worse when the DoD got involved. It needed to be a lot smaller -- small enough to fit on top of the stack. And there was no need to risk astronauts' lives to launch payload -- use an unmanned launcher for that.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    Putting it on the top of the stack would prevent the first stage engines from being reused.
    - tanzam75 13y ago
      > Putting it on the top of the stack would prevent the first stage engines from being reused. That's true, but reusability was the wrong goal. It forced a bad design to be adopted. It also led directly to the wishful thinking (50 flights per year!) that caused the schedule pressure on the Challenger. The actual goal should've been low cost. Instead of designing the most awesome closed-cycle engine that we could, we should've mass-produced a low-tech and low-cost engine. That's what the Russians did, and that's what SpaceX is doing today.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I just finished reading the book "Digital Apollo". I found the tale it related quite disappointing, because of how many technical decisions were based on the need to have the prototypical "American hero" with a cowboy / fighter pilot mentality at the controls. It described many situations when rather than have something that is more advanced technically and likely more reliable and safe, they wanted to give the image to the public and to the pilots that the men were truly "flying" their spacecraft to the moon.

BrandonMarc 13y ago
You can see this happen in the movie, "The Right Stuff", wherein John Glenn and the other astronauts insist the spacecraft must have windows so that they can pilot it. The conversation demonstrates how the engineers and the astronauts had totally different ideas of how it was supposed to work.

BlackDeath3 13y ago

This is so sad to me. If there is no political pissing contest to be had, the people in-charge don't care to do it. Why is curiosity not enough? Why must we all be more concerned about who has more nukes than about the 99.999%+ of space out there that we've never touched? Yeah, yeah, I know. Something about human nature...

ivanca 13y ago
All nations existences are completely arbitrary -besides the ability to kill or exile previous residents-. Therefore one of the few common goals of the people inside the most rich of those arbitrary separations is to have the most advanced and numerous weaponry; everything else is open to discussion and that sadly includes science that is not clearly towards that goal.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
Political mindset: Funding a pure science project won't help me win my next election. Now where's my intern? So long as space travel depends on politicians, this'll be the case, with some rare exceptions. Even Columbus had to justify the expense of sending his ships on an exploration cruise heading West across the Atlantic (trade with India).

return0 13y ago

It was kind of interesting when the two big Brain-related initiatives were announced last year, first a European one and then the American one as a response. Now, the circumstances are completely different than they were during the cold war, but I kind of hope there is enough competition to propel both projects.

BrandonMarc 13y ago
Makes sense. Having "won" the high ground, but then abandoned it ... you can bet if a Chinese tykonaut set foot on the Moon, Congress would pay top dollar to establish a base ... and it would be before the next election cycle, none of this "in the next 15 to 20 years" crap. By the way, which initiatives are you referring to?
- return0 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRAIN_Initiative

craigching 13y ago

We really need some Martian terrorists so we can expand the "War on Terror" to interplanetary foes and fight them "over there" instead of "on our soil." To be clear /s :p