|
Post by Cavorite on Jul 28, 2008 22:33:52 GMT -4
I've examined the microfiche myself while in the state library and had always meant to find the time to take copies of it all for others benefit but never got around to it.
Of course, I've been accused on other boards of lying when I say that I have personally examined the evidence. I'm sure that if I produced scans someone would simply respond that the archives were doctored after the event to remove the incriminating material. But that's only for the hardcore unreachable few, of course - every nail in the coffin can only help enlighten the casual observer.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 29, 2008 2:43:03 GMT -4
I was agreeing with Obviousman’s comment " They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth." In other words, I agree with you that I've never seen anyone argue that the money leaves Earth’s economy. OK, then I'm rather confused, and I reread the post, and am still confused. I thought this was the bogus argument you were debunking, and took that mean that you thought someone was making that argument. If that's not the case, then I'm not sure what the bogus argument is. But, if all agree, then maybe there is no point in further debate on this particular point In any event, in the interest of keeping things short, I will only comment on a few of the points in your post. I think an investment in something that stimulates the economy, spurs new industry, and creates jobs is ultimately better than a free handout. I have heard the job creation argument many times, and I have also pointed out many times (including in my last post) the problem with this argument. Spending on space exploration does not create jobs, it moves them from one sector of the economy to another. Maybe it moves jobs away from the production of caviar and MRI machines, or maybe it moves jobs away from the production of heroin and kiddie porn. But either way, it doesn't create jobs any more than moving money from my checking account to my savings account creates money. my argument was about spending money on any R&D project that will stimulate economic growth versus spending it on welfare type programs. The argument from before sounded a lot different to me, but let's not worry about that. I suppose if all you want to do is point out that certain arguments raised against spending on space exploration are stupid, then all you need to do is point out that spending on space exploration is better than spending on whatever the critics advancing these arguments want to spend it on. But if you want to go to the next step and argue spending on space exploration is a good idea, the relevant benchmark is the best alternative use of the money, not the worst. If an R&D project results in less useful R&D than another project with the same price tag, then it doesn't stimulate economic growth, it depresses economic growth. They allude to some magic way in which NASA's budget can be used to solve all the world’s problems without providing any justification for their argument. I am not interesting in their hand-waving arguments. Not to be too harsh on you, but that's pretty much how I feel about allusions to the ways in which NASA's budget creates jobs. As I have pointed out, it is supported by taxation, which has an offsetting job destruction effect. It doesn't create jobs; it moves them. Maybe you or I on the whole like the total effect, but either way, we ought to call it what it is, and it is not net job creation.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 29, 2008 3:08:52 GMT -4
I've always been confused by one point of yours--you always say that space exploration doesn't create jobs. How do you know? I mean, have you looked at how many jobs there were before versus how many jobs there were after? It's obviously possible to have different numbers of available jobs in the economy, right?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2008 5:32:45 GMT -4
I suppose if all you want to do is point out that certain arguments raised against spending on space exploration are stupid, then all you need to do is point out that spending on space exploration is better than spending on whatever the critics advancing these arguments want to spend it on. Not true, you're shifting the burden of proof. It's up to the critics to show that what they want to spend the money on is more beneficial than spending it on space exploration.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 29, 2008 10:28:19 GMT -4
OK, then I'm rather confused, and I reread the post, and am still confused. I thought this was the bogus argument you were debunking, and took that mean that you thought someone was making that argument. If that's not the case, then I'm not sure what the bogus argument is. What I called a bogus argument is the argument that the money is better spent on something other than space exploration. My point is that it really doesn’t matter because the money filters down through the economy the same regardless which sector the initial investment is in. If somebody can’t demonstrate to me that we are better off spending money on X rather than Y, then what’s wrong with spending it on Y if it makes no difference? I’m not necessarily arguing in favor of Y (i.e. space exploration), I’m arguing why not Y if X cannot be proven to be better. I have heard the job creation argument many times, and I have also pointed out many times (including in my last post) the problem with this argument. Spending on space exploration does not create jobs, it moves them from one sector of the economy to another. I’m not saying space exploration by itself necessarily creates jobs. I’m saying that R&D into technologies that spur the creation of entirely new industries creates jobs because we’ve created an industry that did not previously exist. This is certainly not unique to space R&D, but history has shown aerospace to be responsible for many spin-off industries. Spending money in another sector may be equally effective, perhaps even more so, at spurring new industry than the space sector, but that is up to the person arguing against space to prove to me. Remember, I’m not the one to write a letter saying there are better things to spend our money on, thus it is not my burden of proof. my argument was about spending money on any R&D project that will stimulate economic growth versus spending it on welfare type programs. The argument from before sounded a lot different to me, but let's not worry about that. My problem is with people who make an argument like, “we shouldn’t waste our money on space when we have problems here on Earth like poverty.” I’m sure you’ve seen arguments like this before because I certainly have. What am I to make of this? No suggestion is provided on how we are to use this money to solve the poverty problem (if there is a way I’d like to hear it). We can only guess at what the arguer might mean. If they mean give the money away in some sort of welfare handout, then I don’t think that’s any answer to the poverty problem. Yes, it might help some poor families buy food and essential goods, but it is not a long term solution. The people will simply subsist on handouts that will be little noticed in the economy (NASA’s budget is only 1/10 of the economy stimulus tax rebates we just received). The better and longer term solution is job creation. This may be what people mean when they make their argument, but since they aren’t specific, how can we assume this? If job creation is the goal, why is some other sector better than space? The space sector has shown itself to be pretty good at spinning-off new industries. Unless someone can demonstrate that something else is better, then why not space exploration? I suppose if all you want to do is point out that certain arguments raised against spending on space exploration are stupid, then all you need to do is point out that spending on space exploration is better than spending on whatever the critics advancing these arguments want to spend it on. But if you want to go to the next step and argue spending on space exploration is a good idea, the relevant benchmark is the best alternative use of the money, not the worst. If an R&D project results in less useful R&D than another. project with the same price tag, then it doesn't stimulate economic growth, it depresses economic growth. Why is it my burden to prove anything? I’m not the one who wrote a letter to the newspaper saying our money is better spent on something other than space exploration. The letter writer is the one who has assumed the burden of proof. Not to be too harsh on you, but that's pretty much how I feel about allusions to the ways in which NASA's budget creates jobs. I’m not arguing that NASA’s budget creates jobs. I’m saying that NASA develops technologies that the private sector then exploits to create new industries. If a brand new industry emerges, how do you argue that that doesn’t create new jobs? And before you say it, I agree that sending the money elsewhere may have an equal or better effect, but as far as I’m concerned, that is up to the people who rail against space to prove. NASA’s budget is already established. I’m not arguing for an increase, so why should I have to prove anything? If someone argues NASA’s budget should be cut, it is their responsibility to justify that position.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 29, 2008 11:20:44 GMT -4
Since there has apparently been some misunderstanding in regard to my original argument, please allow my to dissect my post and better explain what I meant. It was probably my bad wording rather than the people who penned the letters. They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth. I’m sure that’s what they say, or at least what they mean. Of course I’ve always found this to be a bogus argument. I’m agreeing with Obviousman that the letter writers probably mean that the money budgeted for space could be spent on better things here on Earth. I say this is a bogus argument because… The money simply cycles back through the economy. A big hunk of it pays the salaries of the Apollo workers, some of it pays company shareholders, some of it goes to capital reinvestment, etc. Those on the receiving end use it to buy food, shelter, education, healthcare, goods, etc. Ultimately it goes to farmers, construction workers, teachers, healthcare providers, miners, factory workers and other hardworking Americans who are just trying to provide for their families. Meaning that if we spend the money in another sector it is just going to filter down through the economy the same as spending it on space. I then proceed to add… I guess by saying it should be better spent they mean it should be given away to those who produce little in return rather than using it to R&D technology that generally benefits humanity, produces new industries, stimulates the economy, and generates tax dollars to more than offset the initial investment. Note that I don’t know what the letter writers mean when they say it should be spent on something else because I’m guessing at their meaning. I surmise “they mean it should be given away to those who produce little in return.” In other words, I’m talking about welfare. I counter this by saying I believe the money is better spent on the R&D of new technologies. I’m arguing the beneficial economic effects of investment in R&D versus handouts to those who will use the money simply to buy basic goods. Note also that I don’t specifically mention the space sector. My argument is about R&D in general versus welfare, not about space versus some other sector. However, it is implied I consider space to be one of the R&D sectors that benefits the economy.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 30, 2008 4:54:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 30, 2008 11:55:12 GMT -4
Many thanks Obviousman!!!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2008 9:37:43 GMT -4
Oi! Did you two guys get the papers I emailed two nights back (4:24am NZST on the 30th)? I sent the West Australian typescripts, plus all the 1957-58 space race clippings typescripts, then a second email with the spreadsheet listing of the second lot. At the time there was a big storm raging all over the top half of New Zealand (PhantomWolf isn't missing much -- his area copped it worse than mine) and I was lucky to not have my power cut off, so I asked you to acknowledge getting them in case they vanished into cyberspace, or, more likely, due to a wrecked telephone cable somewhere. The first email took ages to leave -- I'm on very S-L-O-W rural dialup.
Obviousman: Thanks for the scans. My photocopies are from different editions of the West Australian, possibly later ones, but I haven't yet done a close comparison. Some of the articles or their headlines differ.
When you get my typescripts, you'll see that I mention in four places *{obliterated in microfilm}* where there were marks at the bottom of the page. If you can help with the missing info, I'd appreciate it, along with copies of any of the articles I missed.
For anyone who's interested in either the Apollo 11 clippings or the 1957-58 ones, or both, they are possibly the same or similar to what's in your own newspapers of the time, except for different headines or slight alterations to fit the space available. So if you want to record what your own papers say, except for any local writing I've possibly done most of it for you already.
It's important to not believe everything you read in newspapers. I added the following warning and examples to the Apollo 11 clippings:
Don't take these articles as 100% accurate. While they are interesting and very informative — such as the bit about the man who almost arranged the death of Wernher von Braun — many of the terms and procedures were completely new to journalists, so there are misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Some articles have been spiced up and in places the sequence of events is out of order.
Some examples: * "The first footprint on the moon will be one of the best documented steps in history. It will be captured in still photographs and recorded on video tape as it is telecast live from the moon." — Probably a journalist's spiced-up misinterpretation of information issued by Nasa. Both the TV camera and the 16mm movie camera recorded Armstrong stepping onto the moon, but his feet were not visible in either and it was not possible to take a still photo of them. Many documentaries since the 1990s have claimed to show him taking the first step but instead have showed him earlier, jumping down to the lunar module's footpad. * "…the second stage separated and flashed to life" — The first stage separated and the second stage flashed to life. * "Aldrin crawled through a 30in. tunnel into the lunar module." — Being weightless, he would have floated through. * Lem instead of LM. * "Two thousand feet. Over the edge." — Two thousand feet. Into the AGS. * "…defuel on the descent (engine)" — ACA out of Detent * "…engine auto over" — Descent Engine Command Override, Off. * "The Eagle's vertical rise was accomplished perfectly." — It only rose vertically for ten seconds, then pitched over and climbed obliquely into orbit. * "I went to retrack" — I went to retract. * "…four miles north of the point planned" — Four miles west of the point planned. * "…its craggy surface." — The moon's surface is fairly smooth, not jagged.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 31, 2008 11:01:37 GMT -4
Hi Kiwi, sorry I got my wires crossed and was thinking you were Obviousman...heck it was really late in the evening. I got both the rtf and xls files. Thanks very much for that.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 1, 2008 2:36:36 GMT -4
Ditto, on all counts.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Oct 16, 2009 8:08:00 GMT -4
BTW, visited Perth again and visited the State Library bookshop (I can't resist a bookshop). Managed to pick up a hardcover copy of DARK MOON in excellent condition, ex-library, but paid more than it was worth... $3.50. ;-)
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 16, 2009 13:24:33 GMT -4
A roll of 'Andrex' would have been cheaper, softer and more absorbent... ;D
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 16, 2009 13:57:42 GMT -4
............It's up to the critics to show that what they want to spend the money on is more beneficial than spending it on space exploration. Kiwi already supplied one critic's suggestion (sarcasm alert)How many engineers could be employed to come up with a system to combat the "Corleone Effect" that causes Australian toilets to flush backwards (and all toilets south of Italy)? The spin offs are obvious. This research would go a long way towards global climate control if larger versions could be used to spin down Typhoons and Hurricanes. Instead we spent millions coming up with items that would have no use here on Earth, such as sheilding from the radiation of the "Van Halen Belt"
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Oct 16, 2009 18:10:04 GMT -4
I'd like to add that Una's impossible story is one of my favorites.
Imagine my suprise when "Dark Moon" gave her pride of place in a mention in the foreword From page 1:
Then Bennett and Percy go about adapting Una's story, as you all know well, to suit their own 'needs'. Its all quite hilarious really.
|
|