Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Vinyl Fluff on image #1226155

I'll leGave one last reply, then I'm done. I don't feel the need to make an entire forum thread for this.

"@Cirrus Light":/1226155#comment_6011918
[bq="Cirrus Light"] "@Vinyl Fluff":/1226155#comment_6011865
Again with Von Braun, him and his engineers - none of them _wanted_ to work on military weapons. They wanted to work on spaceflight technology.[/bq]

Yeah, never claimed they did. But that's what afforded them the opportunity. Suddenly getting government funding and access to whatever you need is undeniably a huge boost.

[bq]And there's the really upsetting thing. Does the plaque on the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander read "We beat the Soviets"? Did Kennedy give a speech about how we'd beat the Soviets to the moon?[/bq]

The goal of the space race was to beat the soviets, even Kennedy admitted later that that was the true goal, and not actually landing on the moon. That was just something that would happen in the course of beating them.

It's sad, but true. Look at what happened after the US beat them. Moon landings became considered so commonplace and such a non-event that most networks didn't even cover the later landings. And Apollo 13 wasn't a big deal until the accident. The last mission was scrapped because it was felt to be a waste of money. And without the kind of incentive there was previously pushing us, we've not been back since.

[bq]SLS will be launching an Orion spacecraft around the moon, currently planned for late next year, and much of the hardware is already built for that mission. Where's the space race pushing this, if it's so necessary to do these kinds of things?[/bq]

Sigh. Once again, you're assuming I said that conflict was *an absolute necessity* for anything to be done. I never did. I said a lot of our technical progress has come from it. What's pushing stuff like Orion? Two things. The private sector and the idea of commercialized space flight (not to mention getting lucrative government contracts for being a launch platform, seeing as how with the shuttle fleet's retirement the US has to pay Russia to be a taxi service to the ISS) and the fact that people like Elon Musk are, frankly, space nuts (and this is a good thing.)

[bq]But again, NASA isn't dead, the flyby of the Moon is set to happen next year, and Musk (SpaceX) and NASA both still have their sights on Mars - if a Cold War is necessary for these things to happen, then where is this cold war?[/bq]

Never said it was necessary. Not once. Ever. In my previous two replies on this subject, I said it was a large part in _contributing_ it. Not the single sole only element. Our space program wouldn't be as far along as it is now.

[bq]How come the greatest innovations in aerospace since Apollo are coming by in the last few years by a private company with no political adversary, no war, no cold war rivalry?[/bq]

Money. Lots and lots of potential money. Companies being run by billionaire space enthusiasts. Makes a potent combo. If you had the chance to indulge in a passion of yours while the possibility that doing so would make you untold money, that wouldn't make you jump?

The other angle you're not getting here is I'm not limiting "technological progress" solely to scientists and the space program. Weapons technology, transportation technology, materials. The whole gamut of technological progress we've made. Necessity is the mother of all invention, that has always held true. At the beginning of WWII we were using prop-powered planes. By the end, we were flying jet planes that only existed because we had a need for them. Would they have eventually existed without WWII? Sure. But they wouldn't have existed until later. Potentially much later.


You're basically putting words in my mouth with the constant assumptions that I said progress only happens during war and because of it. When I specifically said a lot of technology comes from it, and it does. And in reference to the space program that it would not be as far along as it is, not that it would not exist at all.

Edit: Also, kinda sad we don't have a @Space Discussion in the Comments@ tag we could slap on this for humor.

I'll leave one last reply, then I'm done. I don't feel the need to make an entire forum thread for this.

"@Cirrus Light":/1226155#comment_6011918
[bq="Cirrus Light"] "@Vinyl Fluff":/1226155#comment_6011865
Again with Von Braun, him and his engineers - none of them _wanted_ to work on military weapons. They wanted to work on spaceflight technology.[/bq]

Yeah, never claimed they did. But that's what afforded them the opportunity. Suddenly getting government funding and access to whatever you need is undeniably a huge boost.

[bq]And there's the really upsetting thing. Does the plaque on the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander read "We beat the Soviets"? Did Kennedy give a speech about how we'd beat the Soviets to the moon?[/bq]

The goal of the space race was to beat the soviets, even Kennedy admitted later that that was the true goal, and not actually landing on the moon. That was just something that would happen in the course of beating them.

It's sad, but true. Look at what happened after the US beat them. Moon landings became considered so commonplace and such a non-event that most networks didn't even cover the later landings. And Apollo 13 wasn't a big deal until the accident. The last mission was scrapped because it was felt to be a waste of money. And without the kind of incentive there was previously pushing us, we've not been back since.

[bq]SLS will be launching an Orion spacecraft around the moon, currently planned for late next year, and much of the hardware is already built for that mission. Where's the space race pushing this, if it's so necessary to do these kinds of things?[/bq]

Sigh. Once again, you're assuming I said that conflict was *an absolute necessity* for anything to be done. I never did. I said a lot of our technical progress has come from it. What's pushing stuff like Orion? Two things. The private sector and the idea of commercialized space flight (not to mention getting lucrative government contracts for being a launch platform, seeing as how with the shuttle fleet's retirement the US has to pay Russia to be a taxi service to the ISS) and the fact that people like Elon Musk are, frankly, space nuts (and this is a good thing.)

[bq]But again, NASA isn't dead, the flyby of the Moon is set to happen next year, and Musk (SpaceX) and NASA both still have their sights on Mars - if a Cold War is necessary for these things to happen, then where is this cold war?[/bq]

Never said it was necessary. Not once. Ever. In my previous two replies on this subject., I said it was a large part in _contributing_ it. Not the single sole only element. Our space program wouldn't be as far along as it is now.

[bq]How come the greatest innovations in aerospace since Apollo are coming by in the last few years by a private company with no political adversary, no war, no cold war rivalry?[/bq]

Money. Lots and lots of potential money. Companies being run by billionaire space enthusiasts. Makes a potent combo. If you had the chance to indulge in a passion of yours while the possibility that doing so would make you untold money, that wouldn't make you jump?

The other angle you're not getting here is I'm not limiting "technological progress" solely to scientists and the space program. Weapons technology, transportation technology, materials. The whole gamut of technological progress we've made. Necessity is the mother of all invention, that has always held true. At the beginning of WWII we were using prop-powered planes. By the end, we were flying jet planes that only existed because we had a need for them. Would they have eventually existed without WWII? Sure. But they wouldn't have existed until later. Potentially much later.


You're basically putting words in my mouth with the constant assumptions that I said progress only happens during war and because of it. When I specifically said a lot of technology comes from it, and it does. And in reference to the space program that it would not be as far along as it is, not that it would not exist at all.

Edit: Also, kinda sad we don't have a @Space Discussion in the Comments@ tag we could slap on this for humor.

I'll leave one last reply, then I'm done. I don't feel the need to make an entire forum thread for this.

"@Cirrus Light":/1226155#comment_6011918
[bq="Cirrus Light"] "@Vinyl Fluff":/1226155#comment_6011865
Again with Von Braun, him and his engineers - none of them _wanted_ to work on military weapons. They wanted to work on spaceflight technology.[/bq]

Yeah, never claimed they did. But that's what afforded them the opportunity. Suddenly getting government funding and access to whatever you need is undeniably a huge boost.

[bq]And there's the really upsetting thing. Does the plaque on the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander read "We beat the Soviets"? Did Kennedy give a speech about how we'd beat the Soviets to the moon?[/bq]

The goal of the space race was to beat the soviets, even Kennedy admitted later that that was the true goal, and not actually landing on the moon. That was just something that would happen in the course of beating them.

It's sad, but true. Look at what happened after the US beat them. Moon landings became considered so commonplace and such a non-event that most networks didn't even cover the later landings. And Apollo 13 wasn't a big deal until the accident. The last mission was scrapped because it was felt to be a waste of money. And without the kind of incentive there was previously pushing us, we've not been back since.

[bq]SLS will be launching an Orion spacecraft around the moon, currently planned for late next year, and much of the hardware is already built for that mission. Where's the space race pushing this, if it's so necessary to do these kinds of things?[/bq]

Sigh. Once again, you're assuming I said that conflict was *an absolute necessity* for anything to be done. I never did. I said a lot of our technical progress has come from it. What's pushing stuff like Orion? Two things. The private sector and the idea of commercialized space flight (not to mention getting lucrative government contracts for being a launch platform, seeing as how with the shuttle fleet's retirement the US has to pay Russia to be a taxi service to the ISS) and the fact that people like Elon Musk are, frankly, space nuts (and this is a good thing.)

[bq]But again, NASA isn't dead, the flyby of the Moon is set to happen next year, and Musk (SpaceX) and NASA both still have their sights on Mars - if a Cold War is necessary for these things to happen, then where is this cold war?[/bq]

Never said it was necessary. Not once. Ever. In my previous two replies on this subject. I said it was a large part in _contributing_ it. Not the single sole only element. Our space program wouldn't be as far along as it is now.

[bq]How come the greatest innovations in aerospace since Apollo are coming by in the last few years by a private company with no political adversary, no war, no cold war rivalry?[/bq]

Money. Lots and lots of potential money. Companies being run by billionaire space enthusiasts. Makes a potent combo. If you had the chance to indulge in a passion of yours while the possibility that doing so would make you untold money, that wouldn't make you jump?

The other angle you're not getting here is I'm not limiting "technological progress" solely to scientists and the space program. Weapons technology, transportation technology, materials. The whole gamut of technological progress we've made. Necessity is the mother of all invention, that has always held true. At the beginning of WWII we were using prop-powered planes. By the end, we were flying jet planes that only existed because we had a need for them. Would they have eventually existed without WWII? Sure. But they wouldn't have existed until later. Potentially much later.


You're basically putting words in my mouth with the constant assumptions that I said progress only happens during war and because of it. When I specifically said a lot of technology comes from it, and it does. And in reference to the space program that it would not be as far along as it is, not that it would not exist at all.

Edit: Also, kinda sad we don't have a @Space Discussion in the Comments@ tag we could slap on this for humor.

I'll leave one last reply, then I'm done. I don't feel the need to make an entire forum thread for this.

"@Cirrus Light":/1226155#comment_6011918
[bq="Cirrus Light"] "@Vinyl Fluff":/1226155#comment_6011865
Again with Von Braun, him and his engineers - none of them _wanted_ to work on military weapons. They wanted to work on spaceflight technology.[/bq]

Yeah, never claimed they did. But that's what afforded them the opportunity. Suddenly getting government funding and access to whatever you need is undeniably a huge boost.

[bq]And there's the really upsetting thing. Does the plaque on the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander read "We beat the Soviets"? Did Kennedy give a speech about how we'd beat the Soviets to the moon?[/bq]

The goal of the space race was to beat the soviets, even Kennedy admitted later that that was the true goal, and not actually landing on the moon. That was just something that would happen in the course of beating them.

It's sad, but true. Look at what happened after the US beat them. Moon landings became considered so commonplace and such a non-event that most networks didn't even cover the later landings. And Apollo 13 wasn't a big deal until the accident. The last mission was scrapped because it was felt to be a waste of money. And without the kind of incentive there was previously pushing us, we've not been back since.

[bq]SLS will be launching an Orion spacecraft around the moon, currently planned for late next year, and much of the hardware is already built for that mission. Where's the space race pushing this, if it's so necessary to do these kinds of things?[/bq]

Sigh. Once again, you're assuming I said that conflict was *an absolute necessity* for anything to be done. I never did. I said a lot of our technical progress has come from it. What's pushing stuff like Orion? Two things. The private sector and the idea of commercialized space flight (not to mention getting lucrative government contracts for being a launch platform, seeing as how with the shuttle fleet's retirement the US has to pay Russia to be a taxi service to the ISS) and the fact that people like Elon Musk are, frankly, space nuts (and this is a good thing.)

[bq]But again, NASA isn't dead, the flyby of the Moon is set to happen next year, and Musk (SpaceX) and NASA both still have their sights on Mars - if a Cold War is necessary for these things to happen, then where is this cold war?/bq]

Never said it was necessary. Not once. Ever. In my previous two replies on this subject. I said it was a large part in _contributing_ it. Not the single sole only element. Our space program wouldn't be as far along as it is now.

[bq]How come the greatest innovations in aerospace since Apollo are coming by in the last few years by a private company with no political adversary, no war, no cold war rivalry?[/bq]

Money. Lots and lots of potential money. Companies being run by billionaire space enthusiasts. Makes a potent combo. If you had the chance to indulge in a passion of yours while the possibility that doing so would make you untold money, that wouldn't make you jump?

The other angle you're not getting here is I'm not limiting "technological progress" solely to scientists and the space program. Weapons technology, transportation technology, materials. The whole gamut of technological progress we've made. Necessity is the mother of all invention, that has always held true. At the beginning of WWII we were using prop-powered planes. By the end, we were flying jet planes that only existed because we had a need for them. Would they have eventually existed without WWII? Sure. But they wouldn't have existed until later. Potentially much later.


You're basically putting words in my mouth with the constant assumptions that I said progress only happens during war and because of it. When I specifically said a lot of technology comes from it, and it does. And in reference to the space program that it would not be as far along as it is, not that it would not exist at all.

Edit: Also, kinda sad we don't have a @Space Discussion in the Comments@ tag we could slap on this for humor.