Topic: The space launchings aren't putting food on your table. - page 11. (Read 10653 times)

They knew about the radiation but went through with the missions anyway because the doses weren't lethal for the amount of time they spent outside the magnetosphere. They were dangerous amounts, but not immediately deadly. "Has it been proven that those astronauts died from a cancer linked to that radiation? " Well you can't really prove it because only 24 astronauts left lower-earth orbit so the sample size isn't great. But, food for thought, the odds of a man dying from leukemia is 7.0 per 100,000 and leukemia is the form of cancer most commonly associated with radiation. Alan Shepard went on Apollo 14 and he died of leukemia. In addition many Apollo astronauts got cataracts believed to be caused by radiation: http://emmrem.unh.edu/papers/general/cataracts.pdf

If they had been on a length months/years long mission to Mars or spent that amount of time on the Moon, they'd've probably died.

Well, they can´t claim to have been unaware of space radiation and its harmful effects 45 years ago, right? Has it been proven that those astronauts died from a cancer linked to that radiation? I guess they´re still dying from regular old age at least some of them.

It is a technological step backwards if you send men to the moon and bring them back and then show no signs of being able to repeat that feat for half a century. Who know, maybe someone will be wondering in half a century more when they´ll get out of low earth orbit.

Well as I said before, NASA budget was drastically slashed after Apollo Program effectively neutering its pioneering spirit.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-04-30-Presentation1-thumb.jpg

And to add insult to injury, it can't even make its own money because again, it can't keep its patent revenue or sell commercial products. Even so, despite everything, NASA has still managed to develop new technologies in recent years.


How is this a step backwards? Several astronauts on the Apollo program have died from cancer. That was a short-term mission. A long-term mission to the Moon or Mars is a one-way ticket to malignant tumors and empty hair follicles. Why wouldn't they want to research into how to prevent this?

A Force Field for Astronauts?
         
Researchers are reviving an old but wild idea to protect astronauts from space radiation.


June 24, 2005: Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel. It's the first lesson of electromagnetism and, someday, it could save the lives of astronauts.
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important. ...

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/

Well, in my parallel universe technology doesn´t go backwards. Here they don´t go to the moon, then spend some time circling the earth in low orbit, then even stop that and start figuring out how to survive radiation in outer space. No, here technology always move forwards. We just keep getting better everything.

"Not sure how seriously I can take all that." Then don't, live in a parallel universe where NASA never invented or contributed anything. "And I doubt that the stuff that NASA is supposed to have invented wouldn´t have been invented anyway if it´s so crucial, hugely profitable  and life saving." Well that's only an opinion, and even if that's true, NASA still made back the money it used.

NASA makes tons of money off patents alone but can't keep it because that money goes to the treasury They also can't commercialize the products they make.

"But at this point I think they really need to re-invent a way for man to venture safely out of low earth orbit. They haven´t managed that for over 40 years now and I guess in a few decades more the people that fund this organization will be getting tired of waiting."

IIRC, NASA has had a shoestring budget since the Apollo days and like I said before, they can't keep the patent money they make.

Yes, you'll be happy to know that many of the lives saved were of individuals who were otherwise able bodied and functional and useful to society. 

For example the digital signal processing used in CAT and MRI scans was innovated by NASA

Yeah, independent studies and experts. Not sure how seriously I can take all that. And I doubt that the stuff that NASA is supposed to have invented wouldn´t have been invented anyway if it´s so crucial, hugely profitable  and life saving. But at this point I think they really need to re-invent a way for man to venture safely out of low earth orbit. They haven´t managed that for over 40 years now and I guess in a few decades more the people that fund this organization will be getting tired of waiting.

Hm, interesting. Thank you for that info. Going back to my other thread topic though, are the lives that were saved useful and beneficial lives to society? After all, we don't want Snooki lives being saved.

Uhhh because it's right in the article I linked... Independent studies have shown NASA has a very significant ROI. Here kiddo I'll spoon feed you:

"Estimates of the return on investment in the space program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on space development today."

If you believe in cutting back on wasteful government spending then I'm right there with you, but NASA barely even gets a budget and makes the paltry sum it uses back.

Here are just some of the technologies NASA invented or improved:
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html
These technologies have saved countless lives.

Exactly how would you have the slightest clue about whether or not NASA "makes back all the money put into it".

Ah it's you again 
NASA has a very high ROI. It makes back all the money put into it and more:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html

A huge number of modern technologies were invented by the Space Program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

I guess the satellite launching business was getting pretty crowded what 15 years ago? Sooner? At any rate it ceased to be much of rocket science or brain surgery if you will, long ago. Almost nobody can be dumb enough to believe that you need billions of dollars in the year 2015 to launch communication satellites.

Not all of the towers were taken down. I can still use both my phones that work on CDMA and GSM.

You can sit down, and think about what you just said because you don't know how the majority of cellphones work. We don't need that fancy shmancy sattelite in space.

Yes! Because we need to know there's a planet made of cheese! Knowing that changed my income.





...it changed my life. It made it better. 

Yes, that takes billions of dollars.

TV anywhere?  How?  Over the TV towers that have mostly all been taken down?  Over the Internet, which has key satellite data links?

Well, they don´t need billions of dollars for that. Anyway, I could watch TV and use mobile phones anywhere long ago so I guess that´s fully covered.

Yes, stupid NASA wastes our monies. They are monitoring asteroid courses, launching satellites so we can watch TV anywhere in the world and use mobile phones. Who needs that? We need food on our tables!  

CONGRESS WANTS NASA TO CREATE A DEEP SPACE HABITAT BY 2018
THE NEXT BIG STEP TOWARDS SENDING HUMANS TO MARS

By Sarah Fecht  Posted December 29, 2015

NASA may dream of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades, but the fact remains that nobody's really sure how we'll survive the journey or set up camp on the red planet.

The Orion spacecraft that will drive astronauts to Mars has a diameter that's about the length of a pickup truck. That's not a lot of space when you consider the astronauts' journey to Mars will take at least 6 months.
In order to not go totally bonkers, Mars-bound astronauts will need a larger place to live, complete with private quarters and exercise equipment. NASA envisions the Orion capsule could link up to a habitation module in space, but right now they have no idea what that module could look like. And who knows what the astronauts will live in once they get to Mars.

Now SpaceNews says that a report attached to the recent omnibus spending bill has allocated funds for NASA to figure it out. The bill orders NASA to spend at least $55 million to develop a habitation module for deep space exploration, and to have a prototype ready by 2018.
That would be great timing, since NASA wants to test out its new space habitat around the moon in the 2020s before sending it to Mars in the 2030s.

However, whether NASA could have something ready by 2018 seems debatable. At this point, the agency pretty much has a blank slate as to what the habitat would look like and how it would function. Shielding astronauts from space radiation while also maintaining a light weight will be one of the major challenges.

Thus far Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable habitat stands out as a frontrunner--a test version of the habitat will soon be deployed on the International Space Station. SpaceNews reports that NASA has also awarded funds to Boeing, Lockheed, Martin, Orbital ATK, and other companies to look into potential habitat designs.

It looks like NASA will have to step up its game, and fast. The report requires NASA to come back with a status update about how it has distributed funds within 180 days of the bill becoming law, which happened on December 18.
[Via SpaceNews]

http://www.popsci.com/congress-wants-nasa-to-get-working-on-deep-space-habitat