You’re probably not familiar with the current standards for discussion, but flaming and name calling are a no-no.
Let’s keep it clean, and discuss ideas.
Let’s investigate this! Just wait till I get my tin foil hat
here..
I wasn’t making an argument.
I realize that. I wasn’t using the term in the Austrian way. Now you’re just nitpicking.
Well if many people died in failed space launches, then that would be a good proof that the Soviet space programme was not all fake? Why would somebody fake a failed space launch?
^ Exactly. I tried to make that point earlier. And why would the US fake similar accidents?
Sheldon Richman wrote an interesting article called “The Case Against Nasa”, but I can’t find it online. It’s in the compilation for The Economics of Liberty. He talks about how un-manned missions to space are more efficient and cost less than manned missions but that NASA insists on manned missions because they get more attention and thus more funding.
Player, you believe the entire space program is faked? Even Hubble and telecom satellites?
How about SpaceShip 1?
I don’t agree with your assessment that the program is a hoax, but I do agree with your assessment of the intentions behind it.
Interestingly, NASA has a long history of altering their space images, from the moon landings to Hubble’s color photos; all for the purpose of aggrandizing the State.
Waiting for NASA to tell us the origins of the universe is like waiting for a politician to solve our problems.
They are the problems, they have derailed science and keep two, one for public consumption and another secret.
With all the evidence of lies they should already be in jail, investigations should have been made and NASA police-taped and their computers analyzed, their getting away with it is because their mission is to lie, plain and simple.
It’s a joint venture, military/intelligence/psyop, we are paying our jails and are happy about it, we are applauding the launch of spy satellites which are and will be used against us.
Most engineering students study for example Maxwell “equations”, but never his original works, his original books, only a censored simplified version, but no-one seems to care.
Just as we had been giving lies about the origins of modern terrorism, which is orchestrated and trusted mainly to MOSAD who get arrested daily disguised as arabs fomenting wars or laying mininukes and blaming “terrorist” and they get away with it, they had been caught sniping americans and uploading it into youtube blaming arabs, they nuked american barracks at Beirut, and you are their best friends!
Believing NASA is like believing the CIA or a White House Conference, and using their recommend books and theories for science is like using their recommend books to learn american history.
The state’s functions can be separated in two, to be eliminated and to be privatized.
The same with state’s sponsored science, things that are not truth and those which are hard to disregard, they gave us a bad explanation of it.
We are attracted to the comforting results they gave us, just as comforting as pensions and the guarantees the state promises in exchange for our freedom, the same applies, this time the prices is curiosity and questioning.
It’s the same, economic/legal security and religious/spiritual/scientific security all for the humble price of submission.
Edit: To summarize.
The SpaceProgram was created because it benefits the state in two ways
-They show how great and necessary they are, ‘superiority of socialism/central planning’
-It’s an even better excuse to steal tax-payers money than “the poors”, people want to advance science (but they are not, they are actually paying and building the best jail ever, a true big brother, big eye watching everything you do in real time, and the computers are not to calculate the rivers in pluto, but to store that information). It’s a gullible excuse to steal tax-payers money.
They don’t give a damn about moon rocks or mars rocks, this rocks don’t work and don’t give them money.
Another effect, just ast IP is a hindrance to development, so is NASA, and they don’t want others to launch their satellites and compite with them, that’s why the feed mis-information.
It’s the easiest and simple explanation, the same as always, the same that has been going over for centuries, power and it’s guaranteed continuation, that is control.
It’s a funny assertion because NASA programs are among the first socialists want to cut.
The Space Race was political? You don’t say.
It is a given that NASA is a political-based government monopoly on the exploration of space. I think NASA has probably retarded scientific advances far more that it has helped. Of course NASA will spout a long list of stuff they’ve added to civilization - like Tang. Objective scientific discourse is more often than not sacrificed to the political concerns.
As an organization, NASA is a huge beauracratic mess that tends to focus more on acquiring jobs (and thereby political influence) than technical excellence. That’s not to say that all the folks at NASA are scum, afterall it’s one of the only gigs that some get to work on problems and solutions that interest a lot of engineers and scientists.
Debate on manned versus unmanned exploration is going to happen based on the costs associated with manned spaceflight.
Arguments for manned spaceflght most frequently include the risk of an extinction level event, such as one that has been theorized as eliminating the dinosaurs. That risk has a low probabilty, but a catestrophic consequence. Over a long time the probability reaches 1. A massive evacuation of the Earth isn’t something you can execute in a day, a year or even 100 years. It’s the sort of long term planning that a lot of people just don’t engage in.
Manned spaceflight has many issues associated, most significantly radiation which can kill people. This technological hurdle is something that will take a long time to work out.
The U.S. Government has placed certain technologies in a protected category to the point where you either need permission from the government or you need to be the government in order to utilize them. In the case of technologies a company might want to market, export compliance and ITAR make this impractical.
Present commercial ventures, like Space Ship One and the Bigelow project, are low-earth experiences that are being marketed for tourism above all else (for now). I do not categorize Space X as a commercial venture because it is heavily subsidized by the government, as a way for Obama to pay back Elon Musk for his political donations. So when Obama uses the term “commercial” in his plans for NASA, he really means a few chosen companies (companies that line his pockets being preferred). The Delta programs are the property of the Air Force, as are Atlas.
No current commercial company has the capability for manned, deep space exploration.
Bigelow’s venture still requires the use of non-commercial launch vehicles, however the customers will be paying for these services. He will have flexibility to use whichever launch provider is most affordable.
My preference would be for space exploration to be 100% commercial, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
I believe NASA, as well as the Department of Defense, has created artificial demand for technical capabilities and jobs that would not otherwise exist. Movement toward a 100% commercial market would significantly impact this base, something that has political consequences - most often on the right rather than the left. In addition, NASA has been a selling point for the Liberal’s public education system. So both sides are heavily invested.
A 100% commercial market (i.e., free market) on space exploration very well could open up space exploration more than any government plan could devise, and in ways superior to the NASA way of doing business. So while in the short term the industry would be harmed, in the long term there would be a lot more opportunities.
As for arguments on fake lunar landings, I put those in the same category as aliens at Roswell.
The USSR most definitely covered up some of their disasters in order to appear superior to the U.S. In this respect you are correct that it was to show the superiority of socialism.
Being in the business, the thing that I find interesting is how some of the early endeavors were done with much less sophistication and technology than today. I think there is a lesson to be learned there, as far as design. It’s not the most advanced solution that wins out. It’s the most elegant.
For most exploration, unmanned vehicles are sufficient. Manned spaceflight is a political exercise until we have fully understood and addressed the problems of people in space. Limited, low-earth orbit seems to be generating interest, and may be viable as a business (even better without government).