Proud to be American (semi-rant)

Salanis wrote:

Keith wrote: I'd love to see more money go into NASA and less into US soldiers in the middle east.

Word. But it's like bringing that up opened the door that I am and all Americans are horrendous war mongers because a friend suggested we should fund a particular department of the military, NASA. Just like, "Holy crap. Americans care about more than just our military. And as an American, I have a heck of a lot more right to complain about it than you."

NASA isn't a department of the military, it's civilian.

Great quote from Gene Kranz about the decline of NASA, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11. Taken from his autobiography.

Gene Kranz said: Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs.

Gene Kranz said:

Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs.

That is far too true. I am not sure where to place that blame.. but I do think it was a slow decline.

Going to the moon.. hell, going to mars does not incite any interest, NASA has made it all seem so routine. It took the loss of two space shuttles to remind the country that going into space is dangerous work (if you can get it) and now that corporations are getting involved, it will become even more humdrum

Salanis wrote:

Keith wrote: I'd love to see more money go into NASA and less into US soldiers in the middle east.

Word. But it's like bringing that up opened the door that I am and all Americans are horrendous war mongers because a friend suggested we should fund a particular department of the military, NASA. Just like, "Holy crap. Americans care about more than just our military. And as an American, I have a heck of a lot more right to complain about it than you."

NASA is a civilian agency that is funded separately from the military.. but they do work with the military and most of the astronauts are current or former Navy and Air Force officers..

I was under the impression that it was a sub-department of the Air Force. Makes it even weirder that someone would get pissed at an American for saying, "You know, we could shift a little bit of military spending towards NASA."

mad_machine wrote: Gene Kranz said: Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs. That is far too true. I am not sure where to place that blame.. but I do think it was a slow decline. Going to the moon.. hell, going to mars does not incite any interest, NASA has made it all seem so routine. It took the loss of two space shuttles to remind the country that going into space is dangerous work (if you can get it) and now that corporations are getting involved, it will become even more humdrum

That's what's wrong. The soccer moms and safety Nazis have demanded that everything involve NO risk. If something DOES involve risk (such as hot coffee from McDonald's) and someone gets hurt, sue the snot out of them. Gotta have forty eleventeen airbags in every car (along with a hundred cupholders). Get rid of that attitude and maybe, just maybe, we can start to explore again.

Here's what I have to add: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93n-EmGknEU

One of Gene's comments is that the moon missions had one very clear, defining goal. All of the Apollo missions were building towards one thing: putting that footprint on the moon. I'd never realized how true that was until I started reviewing the progress.

But they were determined to do it without any loss of life. Bringing the astronauts home was the first priority. Yes, they lost three in Apollo 1. But it prompted a major redesign and changed the culture of the project. Space was risky. The solution was not to avoid space, but to be perfect.

But that's not the same as the attitude of society at large, of course.

I'd recommend reading "Failure is not an option". It's a really interesting peek into the management of complex missions, how to deal with the expected failures (all of the spacecraft had failures of some sort) and about doing what needed to be done. If you're into endurance racing, there's probably quite a bit to be learned.

mguar wrote: In reply to Keith: America needed to put a man on the moon.. We needed it for a whole lot of reasons. For military reasons, for political reasons, and for economic reasons.. (the development of the Apollo Program .spawned hundreds of billions/trillions worth of products) The hard part is looking for cost- benefit.. In the early 60's it was such a tiny portion of our disposable income it was well worth it's cost. As other costs increased and the available discretionary funds were reduced the cost benefit ratio changed..

NASA still has a miniscule budget compared to what some government agencies have.. and considering that rocket science they do... it is pure genius they get anything done at all

mguar wrote: 435 billion dollars to build the next generation of fighters when we're already 3 generations ahead? (and less than $100,000 worth of drones can bring them down)..

Nooooooooberkeleyingway.

Most glaring, first: $100,000 wouldn't buy a missile to put on a drone to try and shoot down the F-22, much less a drone itself.

Secondly, the F-22/35s are what's called "5th gen" fighters. While it's true no other player has developed a direct competitor to either of them, Russia, China, and India are all scrambling to produce there own stealth fighters, and by 2020 the F-22 will be a nearly 20 year old design competing against these newcomers.

To make matters worse, the current crop of "4.5 gen" fighters mean business. My personal favorite, the Su-30MKI, is a masterpiece of the best the Russians, Indians, and Israelis could come up with, and in a turning fight could probably give the F-22 some trouble (full disclosure, I don't know the full capes of either aircraft).

Finally, while there is plenty of fat to be trimmed from every government organization of the planet, when comparing American military expenses to foreign, one must acknowledge the massive legacy costs of retirement and medical and other support provided to service members and their families that the US incurs that a state like China does not. It adds up, quickly.

Osterkraut wrote:

mguar wrote: 435 billion dollars to build the next generation of fighters when we're already 3 generations ahead? (and less than $100,000 worth of drones can bring them down)..

Nooooooooberkeleyingway. Most glaring, first: $100,000 wouldn't buy a missile to put on a drone to try and shoot down the F-22, much less a drone itself. Secondly, the F-22/35s are what's called "5th gen" fighters. While it's true no other player has developed a direct competitor to either of them, Russia, China, and India are all scrambling to produce there own stealth fighters, and by 2020 the F-22 will be a nearly 20 year old design competing against these newcomers. To make matters worse, the current crop of "4.5 gen" fighters mean business. My personal favorite, the Su-30MKI, is a masterpiece of the best the Russians, Indians, and Israelis could come up with, and in a turning fight could probably give the F-22 some trouble (full disclosure, I don't know the full capes of either aircraft). Finally, while there is plenty of fat to be trimmed from every government organization of the planet, when comparing American military expenses to foreign, one must acknowledge the massive legacy costs of retirement and medical and other support provided to service members and their families that the US incurs that a state like China does not. It adds up, quickly.

Where are you stationed and what do you drink?

mguar wrote: In reply to Keith: America needed to put a man on the moon.. We needed it for a whole lot of reasons. For military reasons, for political reasons, and for economic reasons.. (the development of the Apollo Program .spawned hundreds of billions/trillions worth of products) The hard part is looking for cost- benefit.. In the early 60's it was such a tiny portion of our disposable income it was well worth it's cost. As other costs increased and the available discretionary funds were reduced the cost benefit ratio changed..

This post is begging for some research. How much did the Apollo program cost in terms of GDP back in the 60's and 70's? Well, according to Wikipedia, it peaked at 4.41% of federal spending in 1966, one of only two years when it got above 3.5%.

Since 1975, it's been 1% or lower. For 2011, it was 0.53%. So I'm not sure you can say it was a tiny portion in the 60's but that it's way too much now.

There's an interesting note in the Wiki entry that a 1997 poll revealed that Americans tend to have a massively over-estimated view of what NASA's budget really is, assuming it's around 20%. But do the economic benefits and spinoffs from the technological research still exist?

In reply to Osterkraut:

Not to mention we've got F-15's literally falling apart in the sky due to old age...

In reply to mguar:

When I said 'don't have our best interests at heart' I was referring to Korea, Iran, the Taliban, al Quaida, etc.

I also agree that a lot of current military spending is bring the bacon home to get more votes and that bolsters my view that we should clean out both houses of Congress, put term limits in place and then hold all new elections.

I also agree that we could do more with less. The hard part is having the crystal ball which tells you what you won't need.

But the part about how much we spend per person vs. the rest of the world; that's because we send our military to wipe everyone's noses. On top of them being responsible for keeping our country safe. Maybe it's about time to start sending out some bills.

We are in Okinawa still because as part of the treaties signed at the end of WWII we agreed to provide defense for Japan. We are still in Korea because no treaty was ever signed so effectively they are still in a state of war. On that: if North Korea had overrun and captured South Korea we wouldn't have the Hyundai Genesis Coupe over here. So there's a civilian benefit to all that.

mguar wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

mad_machine wrote: Gene Kranz said: Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs. That is far too true. I am not sure where to place that blame.. but I do think it was a slow decline. Going to the moon.. hell, going to mars does not incite any interest, NASA has made it all seem so routine. It took the loss of two space shuttles to remind the country that going into space is dangerous work (if you can get it) and now that corporations are getting involved, it will become even more humdrum

That's what's wrong. The soccer moms and safety Nazis have demanded that everything involve NO risk. If something DOES involve risk (such as hot coffee from McDonald's) and someone gets hurt, sue the snot out of them. Gotta have forty eleventeen airbags in every car (along with a hundred cupholders). Get rid of that attitude and maybe, just maybe, we can start to explore again.

The world has always had over protective moms..not a bad thing.. People are concerned about being safe.. That's just people.. So are you.. You don't play Russian roulette with only one empty chamber,, or do you? Yes there are some Lawyer eager to pounce when a defective piece of machinery causes someone to lose their foot under a lawnmower. Or a car company cuts corners and people die.. There are still plenty of ways to get a thrill, it's just now there are risks people aren't warned about..

Hmmm. So why can't kids play dodge ball any more? How come every kid gets a trophy and thus does not learn that if you don't win this time you need to work harder for next time?

Not long ago in one of the New England states a dirt bike club bought a piece of property so they'd always have a place to ride. They built a peewee MX course so the little kids could ride safely away from the older kids and grownups. The local sheriff told them that if one of those peewee kids got hurt she (yes, female sheriff) would charge them with child abuse and have the place shut down. Common sense finally took over.

NASA worked their asses off to make the space program as safe as they could but when it came time to light the candle the very real possibility of death or serious injury was definitely on the astronaut's minds. I get the feeling that these current products of overprotectiveness would never climb in that thing. Then where would the space program be?

Anybody remember the guy who used to troll threads, and change his forum name about every three weeks? Hmmm...

Curmudgeon wrote:

mad_machine wrote: Gene Kranz said: Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs. That is far too true. I am not sure where to place that blame.. but I do think it was a slow decline. Going to the moon.. hell, going to mars does not incite any interest, NASA has made it all seem so routine. It took the loss of two space shuttles to remind the country that going into space is dangerous work (if you can get it) and now that corporations are getting involved, it will become even more humdrum

That's what's wrong. The soccer moms and safety Nazis have demanded that everything involve NO risk. If something DOES involve risk (such as hot coffee from McDonald's) and someone gets hurt, sue the snot out of them. Gotta have forty eleventeen airbags in every car (along with a hundred cupholders). Get rid of that attitude and maybe, just maybe, we can start to explore again.

We call that the Pussification of America.

stroker wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: Not to mention we've got F-15's literally falling apart in the sky due to old age...

They've been flying over me for years on takeoff/landing and I'm yet to be struck my debris. I don't see a problem.

Salanis wrote: I've got a lot more right to be critical of our military than most foreigners. I don't get pissed at you for how you run your country.

In all honsety, I think a little lattitude should be given to a country that has a permanent military presence from the United States on their soil to be somewhat more critical than other foreign population.

Curmudgeon wrote:

mad_machine wrote: Gene Kranz said: Three decades ago, in a top story of the century, Americans placed six flags on the Moon. Today we no longer try for new and bold space achievements; instead we celebrate the anniversaries of the past... Thirty years later I feel a sense of frustration that the causes that advanced us so rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have vanished from the national consciousness. We have become a nation of spectators, unwilling to take risks or act on strong beliefs. That is far too true. I am not sure where to place that blame.. but I do think it was a slow decline. Going to the moon.. hell, going to mars does not incite any interest, NASA has made it all seem so routine. It took the loss of two space shuttles to remind the country that going into space is dangerous work (if you can get it) and now that corporations are getting involved, it will become even more humdrum

That's what's wrong. The soccer moms and safety Nazis have demanded that everything involve NO risk. If something DOES involve risk (such as hot coffee from McDonald's) and someone gets hurt, sue the snot out of them. Gotta have forty eleventeen airbags in every car (along with a hundred cupholders). Get rid of that attitude and maybe, just maybe, we can start to explore again.

Just wondering if the kevlar 'draggin jeans' I wear when I ride my motorcycle would protect you from spilling hot coffee on your lap at the McDonalds drive through. Maybe we need a law...

I see both sides of this--My wife is a trauma nurse in the local level 1 ER. I don't know if it's good or bad, but hearing about the really stupid way kids can get hurt makes me paranoid. This morning, I asked my 3 year old son not to run with a stick from a Tinker Toy. Cripes.

MG Bryan wrote: Where are you stationed and what do you drink?

America has given the world four epoch-defining creations: The Bomb, jazz, the airplane, and bourbon whisky. Maker's Mark, neat.

Per Schroeder wrote: I see both sides of this--My wife is a trauma nurse in the local level 1 ER. I don't know if it's good or bad, but hearing about the really *stupid* way kids can get hurt makes me paranoid. This morning, I asked my 3 year old son not to run with a stick from a Tinker Toy. Cripes.

You really can't yell Get Off My Lawn(tm) when it's your own kid, though.

Salanis wrote: The other launched the largest humanitarian air mission in history so that your parents and grandparents could eat, then left peacefully when things settled down.

My grandpa was a part of this and I am extremely proud of it. I should really make the trip out to the military cemetery at which he is buried one of these days, unfortunately it's somewhere in western Nebraska and like 7 hours each way!

He used to fly these, but not in the airlift.

Per Schroeder wrote: I see both sides of this--My wife is a trauma nurse in the local level 1 ER. I don't know if it's good or bad, but hearing about the really *stupid* way kids can get hurt makes me paranoid. This morning, I asked my 3 year old son not to run with a stick from a Tinker Toy. Cripes.

i was really young, but i think we were encouraged to run with our tinker toy sticks in the late 70's. i know i was screwing together cool stuff with his erector set from the late 50's at least as early as the age of 3 when my first memories occurred.

my dad would show us the proper way to build cool jumps for our big wheels and encourage us to try to replicate that awesome pic up above- not just me and my brothers, but the kids my mom babysat and every neighbor kid- and he helped me build my first go kart (a piece of plywood with wheels on it and a rope to steer) to go down the street in front of our house when i was 6 or 7..

My dad put me and my brother on one of those lawnmower engine minibikes when we were 5 and 6, respectively. I wonder sometimes if he knew what he was starting in my case. I promptly crashed the damn thing into a big sticker bush at the end of our driveway, got up and got back on the thing. I have busted my butt more times than I care to remember, the saying among my buddies was 'I ain't doing this again till my bruises turn yellow'.

All the kids in my neighborhood growing up had the 1970's version of BMX bikes or actual dirt bikes and we rode the snot out of them. We would spend Saturday morning in front of the TV watching cartoons till 'Soul Train' or 'American Bandstand' came on, then go outside and do our best to get hurt till dark. We built some big sweet jumps, sometimes we'd lie down in a row and see if the guy on the bicycle could clear all of us. I admit it was a little nerve wracking to be the last kid in the lineup.

Now I see the vast majority of kids sit in front of a game console or TV all day, they can't abide being away from the A/C or Internet too long. So maybe they won't get injured on a (insert deathtrap here) but rather will die of diabetes or other weight/sloth related ailment.