The_Metatron wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:you're too late, John

the Most Intelligent Poster has shown the masses What Is and What Is Not

I now move on, Galactus-like, to bring another thread to a close

To whom are you referring?

me. (Utility, Eshuis, Anonymous)

UtilityMonster "Following current events is a waste of time" RationalSkepticism.org "A lifeboat for the rational mind..." 03 Sep 2014 <http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/following-current-events-is-a-waste-of-time-t46620-40.html#p2074288>

Thomas Eshuis, Anonymous 5 "Following current events is a waste of time" RationalSkepticism.org "A lifeboat for the rational mind..." 03 Sep 2014 <http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news-politics/following-current-events-is-a-waste-of-time-t46620-40.html#p2074290>

That settles it, then.

I thought I it would be helpful to the digestion of the last data I presented to highlight the smoking gun and just present that.

As we learn from:

http://www.klabs.org/history/history_do ... ic4-po.pdf

The MIT Instrumentation Lab prepared a presentation for NASA in Nov. of 1962 which
explained why they wanted permission to switch from core transistor logic to IC logic
in the Apollo Guidance Computer. Part of the presentation was this slide which shows
how the IC had already fallen sharply in price by Oct. 1962. NASA gave the go ahead to
use ICs in Dec of 1962. Total outlay from MIT to Fairchild in the evaluation period was
$76,145 for 3800 Integrated Circuits. ( for perspective, a complete AGC required 4000 ICs).

That's a average price of $20 per chip during the evaluation phase!



So as you see, only a very small amount of Apollo money was spent before IC prices where way
down the price curve. And Fairchild had parts on the shelf and their process in order before
MIT cut their first PO.

I hope that puts this myth to rest!

Very informative, indeed. Well done.

I say you continue to miss the point.

Loren Michael wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:I can think of a simpler exercise.

Do the same as above, only with a wheelbarrow. Solve all the problems required to make a simple wheelbarrow. No outsourcing. Rubber, wood, steel, bearings. How many people would you have to put to work just to make rubber tires?

It doesn't matter if others know how to make wheelbarrows already. The exercise is to figure out how, employ the people, get the stuff, and do it yourself.

Why wouldn't I just use existing knowledge and resources to get one cheaply? Economies of scale have brought the cost of a wheelbarrow down considerably in terms of material resources, time, and effort.

You say it doesn't matter if others know how to make a wheelbarrow, I say those others that don't matter can be instrumental in my own success.

I get this is an exercise, I get that there are broader benefits. I don't see how those are justified relative to less sexy, less nationalist options.

I am not sure you do get it. The wheelbarrow wasn't the goal. The skills and knowledge necessary to make it, and all the supporting industry was the point.

What was nationalist about a Mars probe?

Do you realize that America could not today launch a Saturn V rocket? They even have the parts to build one. What they now lack totally is the knowledge to do so. They lack the nationwide support infrastructure to do so. The engineering teams, the manufacturing, simply no longer exists. America just couldn't do it, not without some years of re-building all of what led up to possessing that capability.

The thing is, we don't need to desperately know what's in the rocks of Mars. That really doesn't have a great deal of practical application to us. It's the learning how to get the details of what's in the rocks of Mars that has the far reaching value.

I just found something out. In 1969, the poverty rate in the US was 12.1%. Last year it was 15%.

Who can guess what has happened to the poverty rate in India during the last few years? Looks to me like they are doing something about their poverty problem. In real terms, the entire cost of that mission was less than the price of a single bus fare for everyone in India.

The argument that this mission was poor allocation of resources is ridiculously weak.

The_Metatron wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:I can think of a simpler exercise.

Do the same as above, only with a wheelbarrow. Solve all the problems required to make a simple wheelbarrow. No outsourcing. Rubber, wood, steel, bearings. How many people would you have to put to work just to make rubber tires?

It doesn't matter if others know how to make wheelbarrows already. The exercise is to figure out how, employ the people, get the stuff, and do it yourself.

Why wouldn't I just use existing knowledge and resources to get one cheaply? Economies of scale have brought the cost of a wheelbarrow down considerably in terms of material resources, time, and effort.

You say it doesn't matter if others know how to make a wheelbarrow, I say those others that don't matter can be instrumental in my own success.

I get this is an exercise, I get that there are broader benefits. I don't see how those are justified relative to less sexy, less nationalist options.

I am not sure you do get it. The wheelbarrow wasn't the goal. The skills and knowledge necessary to make it, and all the supporting industry was the point.

What was nationalist about a Mars probe?

Do you realize that America could not today launch a Saturn V rocket? They even have the parts to build one. What they now lack totally is the knowledge to do so. They lack the nationwide support infrastructure to do so. The engineering teams, the manufacturing, simply no longer exists. America just couldn't do it, not without some years of re-building all of what led up to possessing that capability.

The thing is, we don't need to desperately know what's in the rocks of Mars. That really doesn't have a great deal of practical application to us. It's the learning how to get the details of what's in the rocks of Mars that has the far reaching value.

The skills and knowledge for sending stuff to Mars already exists though. The infrastructure for doing so also exists. It's not a problem that remains unsolved or unresolved.

I just found something out. In 1969, the poverty rate in the US was 12.1%. Last year it was 15%.

Who can guess what has happened to the poverty rate in India during the last few years? Looks to me like they are doing something about their poverty problem. In real terms, the entire cost of that mission was less than the price of a single bus fare for everyone in India.

Most vanity projects are minuscule when arbitrary comparisons are made, particularly when you have a massive population to stack the comparison deck. China has even more people than India; that doesn't make its misallocations less egregious, it just makes the bus-fare comparisons more dishonest.

What is it, you don't want to understand?

The skills and knowledge to send stuff to Mars didn't exist in India. They MADE it exist. They didn't ask the Russians, the Chinese, or the Americans how to do it. They didn't look it up in marsrovers.wiki. They MADE those skills exist, in India, with their own brainpower and determination. They innovated. They figured it out, and figured out how to do it far less expensively than anyone else has.

Do you know how to do it? If you wanted to, how would you figure it out? Not look it up, figure it out. Solve the problems yourself.

You still think the probe around Mars was the point. You cannot get past it. The density you are displaying on this is really surprising me, having seen what you write for so long.

The_Metatron wrote:Very informative, indeed. Well done.

Thank you!

I say you continue to miss the point.

Umm.

I say you continue to miss the my (The_Metatron) point.

FIFY

I find I have better success getting my point across if my points are based on solid facts backed by data and not merely anecdotal evidence. And it's especially bad if the anecdotal evidence is rather easily shown to be in error.

Now that we have dismissed these "points" of yours:

From #191

It does have its possible drawbacks, though. If the fucking integrated circuit had not been developed for NASA, we wouldn't have to be putting up with your bullshit right now.

From #203

Yeah, except it was developed for NASA. Get that through your head. You enjoy a life today that would not have happened this way were it not for NASA and the Apollo program.

From #214

No one here but you said NASA invented the integrated circuit. What they did do was enable its development.

From #223

So, what's up, John? That little problem of the Minuteman III D-37C guidance computer being built in1965 using ICs, two years after NASA's influence dropped the price from $1000 apiece to $25 apiece fucking with you?

From #225

As for the development of the integrated circuit, you also enjoy ignoring the timing of it. By 1963, NASA's demand for ICs for the Apollo program had pushed the price down by a factor of 40. Just about right on time for the Air Force and Autonetics to start using those much cheaper ICs to build the D-37C Minuteman guidance computer, which was fielded in 1965. Timing, John. Your conclusions are confounded by historical timing.

Kennedy knew this. You still do not. Probably never will.

What exactly is your point?

It seems to me to be something about why India should reinvent the "wheel" so they too can help their economy by increasing sales of Tang in their country. Is that your point?

I don't think they should do that because according to Buzz Aldrin (and personal experience):


TANG SUCKS
http://www.space.com/21538-buzz-aldrin- ... light.html

And besides, as I've been doing research on this and that to debunk your integrated circuit fairy tale, I learned all kinds of interesting stuff about space travel. For one thing, space travel isn't as high tech as one might imagine. It turns out the future of space vehicle technology is a lot like very old school wooden boat building. For example: I found this:

http://vimeo.com/99146421

And the guy who made that knows what he's talking about because he actually owns a Mars capable space vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGCgxCMjP4

And in case you have any doubts about this, I assure you that NASA isn't laughing because as soon as this space shuttle
finished being restored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruSm8bqyL-k

It went here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3grPfbbDK8M

Where the boys at NASA can learn all they need to learn about future space vehicles on the cheap; because the USA is not
spending as big a % of GNP on space as we did in the past.

These days if US astronauts want to go into space they're riding Russian Air. And it's
no free lunch for them either. In fact, US Astronauts have to help pay for their launch by moonlighting at
lunch. And you too can help. Just make your reservations here:

And Ummm, if you have an actually fact based point on why going to the moon was really, really, important, other than "because we could", I'd be interested in hearing it.

The_Metatron wrote:

The skills and knowledge to send stuff to Mars didn't exist in India. They MADE it exist. They didn't ask the Russians, the Chinese, or the Americans how to do it. They didn't look it up in marsrovers.wiki. They MADE those skills exist, in India, with their own brainpower and determination. They innovated. They figured it out, and figured out how to do it far less expensively than anyone else has.

Do you know how to do it? If you wanted to, how would you figure it out? Not look it up, figure it out. Solve the problems yourself.

In regards to that first paragraph, that's certainly impressive, but again given the transferability of knowledge that has made human beings as successful as they are it seems like a waste to start from first principles. You haven't justified the opportunity cost of doing this.

I read you as regarding India doing this from first principles as being some kind of intrinsic good, or some other kind of good that you haven't elaborated on. I have expressed that this seems like reinventing the wheel. I can see how making things from first principles might be a good exercise at the level of the individual being educated, but at the point that you're engaging in a large engineering project it seems prudent to reject your advice to "not look it up" given that part of education is acknowledging prior efforts in addition to knowing hard work. Scientists "look it up" all the time; it strikes me as weird that you would laud eschewing this. I'm pretty sure they didn't re-invent calculus to get the launch trajectories and the like correct; given this it seems like you're assuming some arbitrary and to me odd cut-offs for not looking it up.

I paint this as nationalism as it seems to me like the good that you're referring to is a kind of pride at doing it in-country. This seems like the point that we're at odds on, please correct and/or elaborate as you see fit on this point and anywhere else.

In regards to this being less expensive, I've already noted that this was done with Indian labor, which is cheaper in-country than the same scientists working with a NASA or SpaceX salary, and they also sent something that was smaller and simpler than other recent Mars gadgets, so it's a little disingenuous to make a 1:1 price comparison. Labor and material costs were necessarily lower given Indian economic conditions and the particulars of the project; go globalization?

In regards to the second paragraph, no, but if I had to make a rocket I have some decent ideas of where to look and/or who to ask.

What is it, you don't want to understand?

[...]

You still think the probe around Mars was the point. You cannot get past it. The density you are displaying on this is really surprising me, having seen what you write for so long.

These are your comments that bookended the actual content of your post. You imply that I have some desire to not understand you, and that I am dense. You also state that I can't think a certain way ("cannot get past it"). Given my posting history that you point out, I cynically urge you to try to get a rise out of me with something a little less puerile. You might consider also showing some shame and/or contrition for making baiting attempts at all, given that attempting to inflame or provoke members is something you agreed to not do as a member here.

Edit: typos

Bullshit. You still don't get it:

...but if I had to make a rocket I have some decent ideas of where to look and/or who to ask.

Making the thing was not the point. That is not where the profit lay. It lay in the figuring out how to do it. The building of the infrastructure necessary to do it.

Oh, sure. Any asshole could scour the internets and find enough technical drawings to get pretty goddamned close. Such an asshole wouldn't know a fraction of what it took to develop that know-how. You seem happy with that. Buy everyone in sight a single bus fare and congratulate yourself on solving poverty.

The_Metatron wrote:Bullshit. You still don't get it:

...but if I had to make a rocket I have some decent ideas of where to look and/or who to ask.

Making the thing was not the point. That is not where the profit lay. It lay in the figuring out how to do it. The building of the infrastructure necessary to do it.

Oh, sure. Any asshole could scour the internets and find enough technical drawings to get pretty goddamned close.

Such an asshole wouldn't know a fraction of what it took to develop that know-how. You seem happy with that.

"Where to look and who to ask" implies asking relevant scholars and other such experts, the way a lot of catch-up development works (China didn't reinvent the cell phone when setting up its networks). I elaborated on this in the paragraphs you ignored, as well as in previous posts.

Are you under the impression that "figuring out how to do it" must necessarily exclude the possibility of asking people who have already been involved in the process?

The bulk of your latest post is a sneering reiteration of points I've already addressed and elaborated on, without any further explanations taking into account my rebuttals, peppered with more insinuations that I'm willfully ignorant and have assholish qualities.

Do you have the slightest inkling of what it takes to merely build and staff the global communications network necessary to execute any space mission? How many people to install an operate it? Design and build the gear? How big must be the scale of the support functions to do all of that?

Thousands. Tens of thousands. Just for the comms.

Just the comms.

Do you think all those people work for nothing? Do you further think such people are simply available and qualified to run that network? Waddya think, you can simply do that part time? Call a local telephone provider or Joe ISP?

Have you given a thought to what it might take to track and receive a signal from what, a transmitter with a few tens of watts output power and 130 million kilometers away? Do that as the earth rotates and orbits? Get it to mission control? Use it, then get the answer back to the probe?

Do you further know that NETWORK was one of the flight controllers with go/no-go authority polled during Apollo missions? That controller had responsibility only for the ground communications stations that maintained comms with the spacecraft. Here you go: Manned Space Flight Network. You figure out what it took to build that network and keep it running.

Just the comms.

No possible spinoffs from that. Of course not.

So, yes. I think you are being willfully ignorant of the benefits of committing to such a project. As to your qualities, those are your own inferences.

John Platko wrote:...For one thing, space travel isn't as high tech as one might imagine. It turns out the future of space vehicle technology is a lot like very old school wooden boat building. For example: I found this:

http://vimeo.com/99146421

And the guy who made that knows what he's talking about because he actually owns a Mars capable space vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGCgxCMjP4

John, you do realise that the 'Space Shuttle Galileo', from Star Trek, is not a real space craft, don't you?

The_Metatron wrote:Do you have the slightest inkling of what it takes to merely build and staff the global communications network necessary to execute any space mission? How many people to install an operate it? Design and build the gear? How big must be the scale of the support functions to do all of that?

Thousands. Tens of thousands. Just for the comms.

Just the comms.

Do you think all those people work for nothing? Do you further think such people are simply available and qualified to run that network? Waddya think, you can simply do that part time? Call a local telephone provider or Joe ISP?

Have you given a thought to what it might take to track and receive a signal from what, a transmitter with a few tens of watts output power and 130 million kilometers away? Do that as the earth rotates and orbits? Get it to mission control? Use it, then get the answer back to the probe?

Do you further know that NETWORK was one of the flight controllers with go/no-go authority polled during Apollo missions? That controller had responsibility only for the ground communications stations that maintained comms with the spacecraft. Here you go: Manned Space Flight Network. You figure out what it took to build that network and keep it running.

Just the comms.

No possible spinoffs from that. Of course not.

In regards to all the stuff before the bolded bit, none of that really serves to address the points I've been making.

In regards to the bolded bit, my first input in this thread stated: Making a parallel NASA is useful, but I think it's maybe less useful, and there's still that tradeoff of not investing in toilets.

I've reiterated that in several different ways. Your failure to acknowledge it is you not getting it, actively or otherwise. My position isn't that there are "no possible spinoffs". Do you get that?

Another way of saying that, from earlier in the thread: I see that there are some benefits as there often are in big investments like this, and particularly given the high-tech component to it, but I think a huge number of Indians would have been better served by toilets and I see that as a huge opportunity cost that I don't see this program as making up for.

You've at best only tangentially touched on this. You've spent the bulk of your latest posts on irrelevant and coarse baiting attempts.

Two posts ago, I explained why I believed "they MADE it exist (from first principles)" is a waste, from several perspectives. Your response was "Bullshit" followed by failure to note why any of my rebuttals did not apply or were otherwise invalid, and then you re-iterating the same points you did before. I'm trying to grok you but the signal to acrimonious-swagger-noise ratio is getting worse and worse. I could match your breathless condescension in regards to "just the comms" with similarly detailed and unnecessary info about the problems caused by a lack of access to toilets, but I don't want to be doing what you're doing. It's ugly.

EDIT: alternate reality involving the path you seem to want to go down:

Loren Michael wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Do you know how to do it?

Have you ever had cholera?

Made of Stars wrote:

John Platko wrote:...For one thing, space travel isn't as high tech as one might imagine. It turns out the future of space vehicle technology is a lot like very old school wooden boat building. For example: I found this:

http://vimeo.com/99146421

And the guy who made that knows what he's talking about because he actually owns a Mars capable space vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGCgxCMjP4

John, you do realise that the 'Space Shuttle Galileo', from Star Trek, is not a real space craft, don't you?

Not real?

Rest assured that the well documented anecdotes of the important technological advances attributed to Star Trek, and the technologies imagined to make it possible, are every bit as real as the science fiction account of the importance the moon landing had on enabling the technological advances that The_Metatron presented in this thread.

http://www.space.com/9705-top-10-star-t ... ogies.html


Perhaps this will help you understand the real importance that William Shatner/Captain Kirk had/has on the US Space program:
(and the Beatles seemed to have helped too!)



And:





And it's not just astronauts that were really impacted by Star Trek



Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the impact Uncle Martin had
on stealth technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQlq4gsui1c

It seems that some here are quick to accept the unsupported claim that the moon landing "enabled" important technical advances. And that belief seems to be enough to justify the expenditures and organizations involved. But imagine for a moment how they might respond to the slightest suggestion that the important ideas, products, creations, of a religious organization in someway justified that organization. Fortunately, we don't have to just imagine. We can buckle up our DeLorean's seat belts, fire up our flux capacitors, and examine the evidence for ourselves.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... hilit=flux

On the other hand, I might have found some evidence that extra planetary travel can help develop important technological advances.

For example, early Mars expeditions may have used:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... E_Type.jpg

to develop:

http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/i ... 3-20-5.jpg

Or was it the other way around- these things can be confusing!

Not sure if this is true or not, but I hear India is planning on having a permanent support call call center on Mars by 2025.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Not sure if this is true or not, but I hear India is planning on having a permanent support call call center on Mars by 2025.

how rude.

Made of Stars wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Not sure if this is true or not, but I hear India is planning on having a permanent support call call center on Mars by 2025.

how rude.

No shit. Who wants to wait nearly 15 minutes for the round trip time of every call to Mars? You ask a question, they hear it just over seven minutes later, then you wait another seven minute for the reply.

The_Metatron wrote:

Made of Stars wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Not sure if this is true or not, but I hear India is planning on having a permanent support call call center on Mars by 2025.

how rude.

No shit. Who wants to wait nearly 15 minutes for the round trip time of every call to Mars? You ask a question, they hear it just over seven minutes later, then you wait another seven minute for the reply.

In unintelligible English.

B.B.C. - New York Times apologises for cartoon