What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
85 Comments
- swordedge, on 07/14/2009, -0/+28The dark ages of space exploration aren't over till we leave low earth orbit again.
- michaelpinto, on 07/13/2009, -3/+31CrankMyBlueSax that's not true - during the Apollo era we were fighting a major war in Vietnam while introducing the Great Society programs - all in addition to outspending the Soviets on the Cold War. It's time to stop making excuses...
- CptBuck, on 07/14/2009, -3/+23The space shuttle was a mistake, the ISS was a mistake. NASA wasted a lot of money on middling projects when what they are best at is shooting for the moon (they're the ones who made that phrase obsolete for god sake.) And doing small, but awesome, science. Moon/Mars bases (not footprints missions) and bajillions of rovers, and great scientific missions should have been the goal over the past 40 years.
The problem has been the lack of any real political vision in congress or the whitehouse, but also a piss poor job on the part of NASA in explaining what they do. In a typical poll the average American overwhelming overestimates the budget of NASA, which is miniscule. NASA is to blame on that one.
NASA is responsible for some of the greatest moments in human history, our astronauts ought to be our heroes again.
Come on NASA, get your ***** together, everyone wants you to do it right. - EMFK, on 07/13/2009, -2/+20FTA: "Although to me that’s all the more of an argument why we should be supporting a manned space exploration program: It’s not enough to see the stars, but you’ve got to reach for them."
I agree with the author. Well said. - undervalued, on 07/14/2009, -3/+16So we spent our time playing big dick contests and bullying? VALUE!
- spambutcher, on 07/14/2009, -7/+20the issue can be summed up in four words:
robots do it better
(or at least 60% as well for 5% of the cost)
people get all misty-eyed about manned space exploration - but it seriously just doesn't make sense from any perspective besides PR.
do you want to send a 5 man crew to mars to turn over rocks? or would you rather send 45 different robotic missions?
we're not going to develop warp drive.
this ain't star trek.
get over it. - HAL90000, on 07/14/2009, -2/+13You expected progress when a government agency was in control of the industry? The only reason they ever made it to the moon to begin with was because they were competing with Russia in an effort to increase their own perceived power.
- CptBuck, on 07/14/2009, -0/+8I'd agree that robots do it better than footprints missions, but if we could get a permanent base on the moon or mars that would be great on a humanity level, not just PR.
- IneffablePolk, on 07/14/2009, -0/+8I'll point out that we didn't land on the moon and then just stop. We went back five times. At best (worst?) the dark age should be 1973-2009.
- njb444, on 07/14/2009, -0/+8Articles like this make me realize how undereducated Americans are with regards to science. The number of scientists in this country is declining, and goddamnit, we need more scientists. We need to start getting kids interested in science at a young age so that we can develop for the future and so that we can keep making progress as a society. Unfortunately, science education as well as scientific research and development has been incredibly underfunded, and as a result our civilization doesn't go anywhere. Why go to war when we can go to space?
- nyxerebos, on 07/14/2009, -2/+9The money spent on the Iraq war could fund NASA's current budget for 52 years, it's a tiny proportion of total spending, America can afford it even with other expenses, if it cared to.
- nyxerebos, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6We do have a new type of propulsion, VASMIR drives. The ion drive of the Cassini probe is another example. In reality we've had the necessary technologies for some time but they've simply not been used. Space elevators/tethers for asteroids and cheap in-system transport have been possible since the invention of nylon, but have never been tried due to cost/scale.
- dx0ne, on 07/14/2009, -1/+7robots don't do it better. only cheaper.
- la7dfa, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6Its not only about resources, but also about getting enough knowledge and know-how to stay and survive in space for a long time.
After all, our moon is just 1 second away and Mars 20 minutes. - CrankMyBlueSax, on 07/13/2009, -7/+13It's all about resources. We had to outspend the Soviets in the 80's, rebuild some infrastructure in the 90's, and fight two long term wars in the 00's.
- CrexisNX, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6@spambutcher
I just don't agree that this is a decision we have to make. That's a false dilemma. True, the nuts and bolts science can be done overall efficiently at the probe/rover level, but they aren't great at adapting very far outside of a mission profile. Human adaptability will be essential for long-term presences that hope to do any more than scoop down one inch into the soil. If we want a real answer regarding life on Mars, send humans.
Also, I don't think it's too much to think that we may some day develop faster modes of space travel. It seems impossible now, but how many times before have those words been uttered in error? - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6ever since the Nazi scientist who masterminded the American space program passed away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
the Americans haven't been able to do it.
***** nazis - SPNKrPunk, on 07/14/2009, -2/+7The state of NASA is such a travesty. NASA is one of the few federal agencies that we can say has a wholly positive purpose. We can point with pride and say to the world that we have made a positive impact and the world is better off for our efforts. NASA does an awful lot with little support, both for space exploration and the aerospace industries (airlines, etc.)
When Apollo 11 landed on the moon, the whole world stopped and watched with joy, and Americans could go forth with at least some measure of genuine pride. Say what you will about the real purposes of beating the Russians and space superiority; that positive energy we generated was more valuable than any scientific data we gathered or tactical advantage.
The last time the world stopped was Sept. 11. I'd like the next time we stop to be for breaking ground on the first moonbase, or the first footsteps on Mars. - Corvidae, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5@norm: The private sector won't fund NASA, the ROI is far too long. Even the more recent commercial ventures into space are most likely going to fail due to financing.
Also we could fund NASA by shutting down less than a third of the military space program, or maybe getting rid of a few of the dozen aircraft carriers we've got floating around. - DrivinWest, on 07/14/2009, -2/+7No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. It has little to do with NASA's wishes or capabilities but rather with what politicians are willing to allocate to NASA. In the 1960s, NASA got 9% of the US federal budget. Think about that for a second.
These days it's less about 0.7%. Trivial, no, but a tiny fraction of what it took to get to the moon previously (and yes, that's converted to today's dollars, not pure percentage). In the 1960s the joke at NASA was, "Waste anything but time."
What's truly amazing is that NASA is on track to repeat Apollo's triumph and leapfrog it with a modular system that will allow permanent lunar habitation and trips to Mars - all on that relatively modest budget. That's a true testament to the organization.
That said, without political will, it'll never happen (the NASA director serves at the pleasure of the sitting president). - ThsGuyRightHere, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5I don't really see how we can call the last few years "dark ages" when we've had unmanned vehicles on Mars. Considering that unmanned missions are the precursor to manned missions, it seems like the so-called dark ages should end with the beginning of the rover projects.
- Noodleson, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5What is the point in going to the moon again? Its like you people just want to go there for ***** and giggles because it looks cool. Nasa does scientific research, they built the only zero-gravity laboratory ever built, and it has been continuously inhabited for several years now. Not to mention all the rovers and data satellites. STFU about it being boring, and go watch american idol or something. Nasa isn't there to entertain you.
- nyxerebos, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6While I agree, practically we need improvements in space-based robotics and automated resource extraction before the manned phase if we're ever to live in space, rather than just visit. For now I believe robots able to extract resources, build habitats and assemble infrastructure are the way forward. Remote controlled machine tools alongside observational probes.
- mikeopubco, on 07/14/2009, -2/+7Right, and a man will never fly, never go into space, find the Titanic, etc. etc. etc.
It's a good thing there aren't more short-sighted people like yourself running things, or we'd all still be wondering what was on the other side of the ocean while sitting on our butts in Europe.
Some of the best shots taken from the moon landings were impromptu snapshots, unplanned, taken by humans. A robot only does what it's programmed to do, and if it gets stuck in a crater 5 minutes into exploration, we've just pissed away millions of dollars. Until robots can adapt as well as humans to unexpected events, your argument of robots doing it better is complete hooey. Let me know when a robot can go into detail about the sense of awe and wonder of seeing the view of a sunrise from Mars, a description necessary to most people to make the event seem "real." - mikeopubco, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5It was once firmly believed that a plane couldn't break the sound barrier. Oops. I find it fascinating that any semi-educated person in this day and age can assume that anything scientific theory is set in stone.
- wolfing, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4the best scientists make about $100k a year, the dumbest financial employees make $150K plus more than that in bonuses... I wonder why there are fewer scientists...
- zeebo, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Think of all the missions that have repaired and updated Hubble. I think that we should do lots of robotic missions, but if we had a permanent human presence on the planet, even if they were just there to service and repair the robots it would be worth it.
- thinkb4utype, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4The Space Shuttle was a mistake because of congressional influence over the program. The original design called for a piloted reusable first stage that would return to the Kennedy center and land like a plane. This was ditched to save money at congressional direction. The external tank and solid boosters were used instead. The boosters were designed in segments so they could be shipped from the congressionally-favored manufacturer instead of making them welded tubes.
So, we lost two Shuttles as a direct result of these design changes mandated by congress. The cost to replaced Columbia would have paid for the original design. - S3Plan, on 07/14/2009, -5/+9Who cares what the "only reason" they did it for was. The point is they ***** did it. Do it again god dammit!
- dafragsta, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4It hasn't been used on anything we use to get into space yet, so it might as well not even exist for practical space travel yet. I'm sure it'll ge great for getting to Mars, but rockets launched from the ground are just throwing money at the problem and making it more expensive to get into space. The operative point of my post is that it's still prohibitively expensive to get into space, especially with a substantial payload, which we're taking a step back from with the shuttle being decommissioned.
- njb444, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4"Humans are not made to live on large ships that just drift through space, they need the combination of gravity, atmospheric composition and pressure, radiation and a ton of other factors that you cannot possibly replicate artificially forever."
As I said, who knows where technology will take us. Obviously we wouldn't drift in empty space forever, but would likely stop at different solar systems every 100-1000 years. We have plenty of time to develop the technology to do this, unless we procrastinate and waste our time on wars here on Earth. Perhaps we could even evolve to live on such ships. The sky is the limit.
As for why we should survive as a species. Why not? - norman619, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3That requires continued presence in space.
- CptBuck, on 07/14/2009, -2/+5I did some research with a little rough math and your numbers aren't even close to being accurate. The annual cost of the Apollo program was minuscule as a percentage of GDP, particularly as a percentage of 2009 GDP. Putting men on the moon cost roughly 135 billion dollars over the course of 14 years. To spend that kind of money again would be easy, people would get behind it. In a government with a 1 trillion dollar annual deficit we could easily double or triple NASA's budget and get this done. NASA's current budget btw is about $17 billion, which frankly is a joke.
- pinchduck, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3I think that it is a shame that we are more frequently looking to the past to reminisce about our faded glory rather than to the future and how we can once again become a great nation.
- dafragsta, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Exactly... why was there even a year span and the implication that we'd somehow made a revelation that took us out of the dark ages. Until we have at least have a new kind of propulsion or until space flight is dirt cheap, I don't think you can call it the end of an era. With the shuttle about to be mothballed, I'd say we took a few steps back.
If you go up on a hill in Houston, TX, with the right kind of eyes, you can actually see where the wave broke and rolled back. OK, ok, somewhere in Aspen, Hunter Thompsons's ashes just reassembled to roll around a bit over that one. ;) - thinkb4utype, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Left out the fact that the titanium-skinned Shuttle was redesigned with less expensive tiles.
- Mikey129, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3"Micro-dark age" Seriously? Who is making this up.
- chrisdlee, on 07/14/2009, -0/+340 years later, if we kept up the same progression that was made in those first 8 years, where could we be now? On the moon, and maybe even other planets.
I think it's because we make achievement based on necessity. During that era we were in a race, and we, as America, HAD to come out on top. Unfortunately for the sci fi crowd, colonizing the moon or other planets is not a necessity. - JQP123, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3"The Space Shuttle was a mistake because of congressional influence over the program."
Congressional oversight of government funded programs sounds like a *major* problem. I'd say we need to stop any further projects until we get this fixed. - CrexisNX, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2We're capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
- norman619, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Forgot to add the wars we have been fighting have been paid for with money we really didn't have. Our government has been living well beyond its means for a LONG time. The days of government funding NASA the way it used to are done with. Obviously that's assuming government learns its lesson. It will be up to the private sector to fund the future of space exploration. Bigelow Aerospace is paving the way.
- shadowspawn, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2..."we’ll stand in line for the latest Star Trek film..."
Hey. Get someone to film a moon movie for NASA. Start the whole moon-base thing up again. Mining the Asteroids. Riches. Well, maybe bad idea. Don't want any explosions. - e2superman, on 07/14/2009, -3/+5I will take the internet over space travel. If ***** hits the fan we are not going to be traveling to another solar system for several thousand years if ever. We need far better fundamental science and the cooperation of the world to get there. We need to get our #$%# together down here first.
- spambutcher, on 07/14/2009, -2/+4a base on mars or the moon might be cool - but the novelty would wear off quick - much like the international space station. remember that thing - anyone still care about it?
from a practical standpoint - going to the moon the first time cost a -huge- amount of money (one source I found suggested 2%-3% of the GNP) - probably just won't happen again in the near future without serious external motivation.
for 5% of the cost we might be discovering -LIFE- on the moons of Saturn or Jupiter.... - njb444, on 07/14/2009, -2/+4This sounds incredibly corny and melodramatic, but Earth isn't going to last forever, and the only way we will survive as a species is to develop permanent colonies in space. Not necessarily outposts on planets, but maybe large ships that just drift through space. Who knows where technology will take us, but it won't take us anywhere if we don't push the limits on what we can discover.
- SteelChicken, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2You guys are morons.
Just because *manned* exploration has been cut back, the amount of data and lessons learned from unmanned exploration is ASTOUNDING.
Without a quantum leap in energy/production/cost reduction of launching, unmanned is the most efficient way to do it for now. - Travelsonic, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72 ...
"NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry.
Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -- futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades away from commercial deployment." - wolfing, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2Sadly, there is nothing in the Moon but dust. Had we discovered something of value there you can bet your ass that we'd be there in force
- ProfessorRiffs, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1What.
- JQP123, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2"It allowed for all those satellites to get up there."
Wow! Just Wow!
The space shuttle was *the* most expensive method ever devised for putting a payload into orbit; directly the opposite of what was originally promised. Noone used the shuttle to launch satellites because it simply wasn't cost effective.
However, the shuttle boondoggle was easily surpassed by the ISS boondoggle which was mainly a make work project to justify the space shuttle. We've got this really expensive system that noone wants to use --- what to do? I know, we'll create an even more expensive system that noone wants to use and we'll use the first one to build the second. Boondoggle on top of boondoggle brought to you by the brilliant minds at NASA.
And some clueless individuals wonder why NASA doesn't get more funding. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is