For those of you who think the Space Shuttle doesn't do practical science...

[TZ]

Here's an old article/nasa press release about the cancer research that is performed on the Shuttle and in conjunction on the ground:


In our lifetimes -- half of all men and one-third of all women will develop cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.
To aid medical researchers combat these odds, NASA sponsors both space and ground-based research to better understand -- and win -- the fight against cancer.

Sponsored by NASA's Microgravity Research Program at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., biomedical and biotechnology research conducted aboard orbiting spacecraft and in ground-based laboratories is leading to a better understanding of cancer and new innovative treatments.

Advances in space technology have led the way for new treatment techniques for removal of children's brain tumors, a new skin cancer drug and improved understanding of women's breast cancer.
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1998/98-197.html

[tbyg52]

1. I never thought otherwise. Thanks for the link. nt

[noamnety]

2. I don't think anyone has tried to make that case.

but thanks for the link anyway.

[TZ]

3. Actually quite a few here on DU

Have complained that the Shuttle is a big waste of money, that has no application to the real world (mostly in GD but a couple here as well).

[onehandle]

4. They can't see the forest for the trees.

They only think of the military missions that the Shuttle has been used for.

They're also the ones who wave "Free Mumia" signs at inappropriate protests and events.

Just because you're liberal, doesn't mean you're smart.

[FogerRox]

16. Or Liberals are smart

and only those who think they are liberal, are the ones that aren't. Smart or Liberal.

[Johonny]

18. or they understand science

and no it's terrible for medical research because a) the cost of the research is very high (250 million to get the shuttle off the ground, which in comparison is the total budget of all fusion research in the US) and b) the benefits of being in a weightless environment very minimal for most tests. In the case of medical experiments it's bad because there is simply a lack of test samples. Medical research in general requires a large amount of individuals being tested. You can't justify flying the shuttle based on the science content it produces. Never could.

[noamnety]

5. Hmmm. Is it possible you are misrepresenting their complaint?

Did any of them actually say there is no practical application for any of the research?

Or are you making up strawman arguments they never made and attributing it to them for some reason?

[TZ]

6. Nope

I think this statement made to me "The Shuttle is a big waste of money. None of the experiments done really have any value outside of military use" is pretty damn clear.
I won't give a specific link as calling out a specific DU'er is agaisnt the rules.

[noamnety]

7. I couldn't find that phrase in a basic DU search

so I can't see the full context. I know that doesn't represent the majority (or even any) of the complaints about the cost of the shuttle that I've ever seen here.

[skepticscott]

8. The point is not

whether there is any practical application for any of the research done on the shuttle. The point is whether the money spent on the shuttle program could be better and more efficiently spent in the pursuit of knowledge in other ways. We may indeed be getting usable knowledge from experiments done on the shuttle, but would we not be able to get much more knowledge for the same money in ground-based experiments, considering how many bazillion dollars we spend just getting the shuttle off the ground?

[Johonny]

19. exactly

see comment above.

[Posteritatis]

20. Lots of them do every single time a Shuttle launches or lands. (nt)

[FogerRox]

9. I place more value on the cadre of space workers

Doing construction in space might come in handy in the future. Maintaining a stable of experienced astronauts is vital. Growing that work force is vital.

[noamnety]

10. Vital for whom?

Not for some woman feeding her family clay cookies in Haiti.

[Wilms]

11. Do you really believe the space program stands in the way of Haitians eating? n/t

[noamnety]

12. Anything that plows through nonrenewable natural resources

has an impact on the rest of the world.

The space race (and its mentality of global domination) has had and continues to have a harmful impact on more than just the US. Nothing that large exists independently of other things.

[Wilms]

13. I get the general picture.

But of course we could explore space and not be as large a burden.

But I do share your disappointment with the "mentality of global domination".

History suggests empires collapse.

[Indenturedebtor]

14. I for one think humanity is worth saving

The sooner we can colonize another planet the better. If we get hit by an extinction meteor I hope that we have established life on another planet by then.

In the meantime... who doesn't like tang? :P

[FogerRox]

15. That is exactly the point. Thank you. The clay cookie mentality ends up buying us all clay cookies

I think the ability to get off the planet has intrinsic value... perpetuation of the human race.

[noamnety]

22. Why is perpetuation of "the human race" of value

when we clearly don't put value on "humans" ?

You care more that some rich bastard can someday keep his DNA line alive on Mars than the fact that millions are starving right here and now?

A part of why they are starving is this mentality, exactly, that technology MUST be good, resources MUST be devoted to the shrine of technological advancement.

[noamnety]

21. "we had to destroy the village

in order to save it."

When the US stops opposing the UN efforts to ban weapons in space, call me. Until then, let's not pretend NASA is about saving civilization. And let's not pretend anyone but the elite has ever benefited from "colonizing" anything.

The reason we don't spend that money on food security, which is a more pressing problem, is because Lockheed Martin doesn't fuel their fat asses on programs like that.

[qazplm]

23. wow

such an uninformed comment.

Who do you think made the initial treks out into the wilderness during early American history.

It was the poor, the folks who couldn't afford land or housing in the settled areas but with an ax and hard work could carve out a homestead in the wilderness.

[noamnety]

24. The initial treks into the wilderness ...

You mean the native Americans, or are you not including them in "early American History"?

If you consider "American history" to start with the oppression and domination of other groups of people who already WERE civilized and settled in various parts of the country, then we have very different perspectives on history. This may account for why we have different views also on the domination of space as if it's ours to conquer (Manifest Destiny and all), and whether we completely dismiss those other pesky people existing on this planet, so long as "mankind" (*cough*) perpetuates its DNA into perpetuity.

The personal insults, by the way, aren't necessary here. Poor form.

[qazplm]

25. calling your comments uninformed

is in no way a personal insult.

Second, no I was talking about colonists. The native Americans were not treking anywhere, they lived there, so why would I include them?

Third, no the initial move of the poor did not involve a whole lot of oppression and domination. In fact, often Indians and poor colonists got along just fine.

It wasn't until the more well-to-do decided they needed to expand that the problems arose.

And since there doesn't appear to be anything or anyone living on Mars or anywhere in the solar system, then yes it is ours to "conquer".

Since when is "conquering" a place where no one lives a bad thing?

I find your arguments thus far to be in "poor form"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. So what are the results of this...

And why couldn't they have been done on earth?