Obama Seeks to Ax Moon Mision

[Billy T]

I can not believe we're cutting a running. NASA is important to our psyche.

Yes; and that is why robots will someday be more intelligent. (no psyche, no pride etc. to make them irrational)

The whole man in space program is a stupid, expensive psyche trip - or an attempt to intimidate others as the cold war era.

No one can name one thing man in space has achieved that has benefit for Earth bound humans that could not have been achieved at least 100 times more economically - Anyone willing to try?

 

[fedr808]

Spoken by one who obviously has a very limited view about computers and AI.

For example, not all computers are digital as you seem to be falsely assuming (or analogue if you still remember them). The neural network* type does not even need to be programmed so is not limited to the set of possibilities that a human programmer can anticipate. I.e. it can learn from experience. In several fields they were already out performing humans 20 years ago!

To name one: The evaluation of loan applications.

Deciding if it will be profitable for a bank to grant an applicant’s loan request. The neural network machine learned on the history of the banks old loans (The old application data and if loan was paid on time or not or even defaulted.) - Much too much data for a human to digest and utilize.

Humans are very subjective in granting loans - often influenced by the applicant's smile (or short skirt) etc. and their biases (like against Jews, resident of poor neighborhoods, or Negros etc.) The neural network learned to more accurately evaluate who would pay on time than the human evaluators.

Again it is not even programmed and considers ALL the factors with the appropriate weight of each. (The human does not know how to rationally weigh them.) BTW, most neural networks are implemented in digital machines, which are cheaper than a hardware neural network machine – they are only used when the digital machine is too slow.

Again you have a very limited understanding of the range of computer types or the superior performance AI has already achieved in limited fields. Humans are more flexible problem solvers, but have very expensive requirements in space (food, water, no extreme cold, etc. plus “man rated” rockets that cost at least 10 times more) If you have a well defined task, like exploring surface of Mars, the robot is at least 10,000 times cheaper. BTW, NASA has given up on re establishing communications with one of the Mars explorer robots – it lasted years longer than expected.

SUMMARY: I favor exploration of space. I just don't want to be stupid about how it is done - sending men instead of robots at >10,000 times the cost.

------------------
* I ceased following neural network theory and practice about 20 years ago. I never like the name as they have nothing to do with neurons. They should be called "connection machines" as that is what they are. At least three "layers" (The first is for the data input and last for the weighted output answer or reduced to a binary answer (yes/no) if that is desired. The weight or strength of the interconnections between the layers is what changes as the machine learns its task(s).

Billyt, was there a point to you making the arguement that the human brain and nerves are a computer and that we can interface?

Or were you just trying to fulfill some innate need to be superior to everyone else.

All a neural network is, is attaching a remote control (metaphorical) to the human brain and using the human to control the computer.

It is by no means artificial because we are still giving the computer the answer.

Next time you spout out some crud in order to show your supposed intelligence dont assume the person does not know more about it than you do.

In several fields they were already out performing humans 20 years ago!

They were G-d damn humans!! how can they outperform humans if they WERE humans?

it can learn from experience.

Well duhhh. It's a human strapped to a computer.

Much too much data for a human to digest and utilize.

It is a human's brain with a direct link to a computer to control it.


BillyT next time you decide to fulfill your innate need to feel arrogantly superior, don't pretend like you know all there is to know.

 

[fedr808]

Yes; and that is why robots will someday be more intelligent. (no psyche, no pride etc. to make them irrational)

The whole man in space program is a stupid, expensive psyche trip - or an attempt to intimidate others as the cold war era.

No one can name one thing man in space has achieved that has benefit for Earth bound humans that could not have been achieved at least 100 times more economically - Anyone willing to try?

satelite TV

GPS

Enough said.

 

[Billy T]

satelite TV

GPS

Enough said.

Except not one of these uses (or used) a man in space.

I'm all for (as stated earlier) Earth resources monitoring, weather satelites, communication satelites, GPS, radio & TV from space, etc. etc. - I just don't want to send men there. Man is a problem - just moving around he disorients the satelite! For example, Hubble could not take time exposure pictures of stars if there were a man on board!

Try again to find even one thing that benefits earthlings that could not have been achieved 100 times cheaper without sending man into space (or even low earth orbit)

 

[Billy T]

1)Billyt, was there a point to you making the arguement that the human brain and nerves are a computer and that we can interface?
2)Or were you just trying to fulfill some innate need to be superior to everyone else.
3)All a neural network is, is attaching a remote control (metaphorical) to the human brain and using the human to control the computer.
It is by no means artificial because we are still giving the computer the answer.
4)Next time you spout out some crud in order to show your supposed intelligence dont assume the person does not know more about it than you do.
5)They were G-d damn humans!! how can they outperform humans if they WERE humans?
6)Well duhhh. It's a human strapped to a computer.
It is a human's brain with a direct link to a computer to control it.
7)BillyT next time you decide to fulfill your innate need to feel arrogantly superior, don't pretend like you know all there is to know.

First the name (which I told I do not like) has mislead you to think (falsely) that neural network computers are is some way connected with humans (or their brains). You did not read my post - I told they are almost always implemented in digital machines, so that answers (1),(3),(5) & (6) but I will respond to each other point and question above:

(2) No, like most of my posts, I am trying to educate. - You obviously know nothing about neural networks (more properly called "connection machines" but I lost that battle 20+ years ago) and even falsely think they need a human for something more that setting the On/Off switch to the "on" position.

(3) NO - humans do not "give the machine any answer." Normally, even after the machine has learned how to solve it task(s) humans can not even understand how it does it or why it works. - There is NO program you could try to understand. The machine is not programmed by a human and as it learns it does not produce anything like a conventional digital machine's program!

(4) Well you do not even understand the most fundamental aspects of a neural network machine - what it is. I have designed them and studied their theory.

(7) Thus, I do happen to know more about neural network machines (20+ years ago) than you or some others posting ignorant / false assumptions about them.

Here is link to a book about these machine computers:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Artificial_Neural_Networks
There you will find list of the chapter sections, which you can click on to learn a little about what you obviously know nothing.

If becoming educated is too much for you, at least visit this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NETtalk_(artificial_neural_network)

At this link there is a link you can click on to hear Nettalk’s progress thru various stages of its learning to read books out loud. This is from about 25 years ago!

Nettalk is an early fantastic application of neural networks. Terry Sejnowski was a visiting professor one year at Johns Hopkins and gave one of the first demonstrations at a colloquium for us about 25 years ago. NetTalk learned to read out loud ANY book in English*. Actually that is not quite correct - nettalk really learned how to drive a Texas Instruments voice synthesiser. As I recall, the TI synthesiser has 8 input controls. (So NetTalk's third layer had only eight outputs.)

*Subsequetly I think other languages too. Some of which Terry himself can not read!

 

[BlueRidge]

I don't like Obama but I have to agree with this cut. Even though I like science and exploration, the country is broke and should not be spending on moon stuff.

Amen sister! I like NASA, and it's great to be in space. But now is not the time.

 

[fedr808]

Amen sister! I like NASA, and it's great to be in space. But now is not the time.

why arent u guys mad about the 1 trillion dollars to the military? You could take 100 billion dollars, hell, 250 billion and not do any damage, yet you take 1 billion from NASA and it compromises the whole program.

 

[Pandaemoni]

IMO if we stop funding NASA then I will take that as a sign of our decline. We have peaked and are on the way down. Shit, we probably spend more money on pampering toy poodles and other pets than NASA's budget.

*shakes head*

That's an interesting point. If NASA's Moon mission were funded by private donations (just as pampering pets is a private decision), then I'd have no problem with that.

 

[madanthonywayne]

FOR THE LAST TIME: NASA'S BUDGET IS NOT SLASHED.

It hasn't been cut, nor will it be cut by a single DIME!

"Missions" are cut (moon, new shuttle), but the dollars to the agency are not being cut. The agency gets about $18 billion now. It will go to about $19 billion next year.

~String

Like that's any better. We're not cutting your funding, we're just canceling all your missions and replacing them with the study of global warming.

 

[madanthonywayne]

So...you think NASA is protecting us from invasions and that's a reason to fund them? Cause they're not. In any event almost all nations in the past eventually failed, including expansionist ones, like Mongols. You know what happened to them? The main force of them were absorbed into China, and China lived on. That siad, it would be foolish to claim that mongolian expansionism caused their downfall, just as it is foolish to claim that Chinese introspection caused theirs.

China's brief period as a navel power brought them great wealth and power. They had, by far, the greatest navy in the world. They even had gunpowder. They could have conquered the world. Instead, they turned inward and stagnated. That is the risk we take. If we're not out there on the cutting edge. If we abandon space exploration and leave it to India and China, we are giving up on the future.

I am not, however, in favor of additional spending myself unless it is very well targeted. The initial round was reasonably targets, but largely still undistributed, and there are other measures that I think need to be taken beforehand would like seriously re-evaluating the FDIC risk profiles for borrowers, as there are a number of banks that like to lend money, but cannot due to a paucity of borrowers who meet the minimum guidelines.

I agree. But I think NASA is such a small expense given the money they're throwing around and, if nothing else, important enough to national pride that it deserves funding. There were many positive spin offs from the space race, and that could happen again. Consider even the increased funding for science in general and the number of students going into science and engineering during the space race. People need something to believe in. Something to get excited about. War accomplishes that, but manned space missions are a much less destructive use of our energies.

 

[Pandaemoni]

China's brief period as a navel power brought them great wealth and power. They had, by far, the greatest navy in the world. They even had gunpowder. They could have conquered the world. Instead, they turned inward and stagnated. That is the risk we take. If we're not out there on the cutting edge. If we abandon space exploration and leave it to India and China, we are giving up on the future.

First, nothing says we have to give it up "forever", just not when we are already running trillion dollar budgets.

Second expansion did not turn the west into a power based on the inherent magic of expansion. It was conquest and resource stealing that brought wealth and power, and we are a LONG way off from making manned space missions (or any space missions) profitable. Indeed if they were profitable, that would be a good case for conducting them in the face of a budget crisis. So I will restate my position to be more clear: We should not engage in non-essential manned space ventures, unless they will turn us a (hopefully hefty) profit.

In the immediate future, there is no one to rape and pillage, and no treasure to be had, in landing a new crop of astronauts on the Moon. If NASA can prove me wong, then that would be something worth pursuing.

I agree. But I think NASA is such a small expense given the money they're throwing around and, if nothing else, important enough to national pride that it deserves funding. There were many positive spin offs from the space race, and that could happen again. Consider even the increased funding for science in general and the number of students going into science and engineering during the space race. People need something to believe in. Something to get excited about. War accomplishes that, but manned space missions are a much less destructive use of our energies.

The spin offs from the space race could have been funded more cheaply had the money simply been given to direct scientific research. Again, a space program has a lot of poverhead that goes to matters that do not lead to breakthrough.

National pride is hard to quantify, but still seems like a luxury in an age when belt tightening is needed. A debt-laden poor family could use their credit cards to take a lavish vacation in the name of encouraging family unity and cohesion. That is not a great reason, in my mind, for them to live beyond their means. In fact, I think I would look down on a family that did that for such a "feel good" motive.

 

[PieAreSquared]

who will be the new king of g-jobs if nasa is gone?

 

[madanthonywayne]

First, nothing says we have to give it up "forever", just not when we are already running trillion dollar budgets.

Obama is projecting gigantic deficits as far as the eye can see. Giving up on space now is like a kid taking some time off from college. They rarely end up ever going back.

The spin offs from the space race could have been funded more cheaply had the money simply been given to direct scientific research. Again, a space program has a lot of poverhead that goes to matters that do not lead to breakthrough.

Yes, but basic science is not as "sexy" and doesn't inspire the public the way manned space missions do.

National pride is hard to quantify, but still seems like a luxury in an age when belt tightening is needed. A debt-laden poor family could use their credit cards to take a lavish vacation in the name of encouraging family unity and cohesion. That is not a great reason, in my mind, for them to live beyond their means. In fact, I think I would look down on a family that did that for such a "feel good" motive.

I'd agree. But your analogy is off. I'd compare fully funding NASA to the family eating out at McDonalds once in a while as a treat, or maybe catching a movie. Normal ways of blowing off steam that no one would criticize even a poor family for indulging in on occasion.

 

[joepistole]

Obama is projecting gigantic deficits as far as the eye can see. Giving up on space now is like a kid taking some time off from college. They rarely end up ever going back.
Yes, but basic science is not as "sexy" and doesn't inspire the public the way manned space missions do.
I'd agree. But your analogy is off. I'd compare fully funding NASA to the family eating out at McDonalds once in a while as a treat, or maybe catching a movie. Normal ways of blowing off steam that no one would criticize even a poor family for indulging in on occasion.

I think NASA is an important part of the US budget, not only because of national pride and national security issues, but because of the technology and resulting businesses produced as a result of our space endeavors.

The bottom line is we are going to have to work together and get out of this mess. Americans throughout the ages have sacraficed treasure and blood for the nation and this is again one of those times.

Some of us are going to have to pay higher taxes in order to pay down the national debt. It is a little late now to be worried about deficit spending. Deficit spending should have been addressed 9 years ago when we started to double the national debt. But I guess better late than never.

 

[Michael]

If I remember correctly when Alexander the Great was on his military campaigns he still held Plays and Games. That's the thing about being Human. We can't be boiled down to some economic efficiency quota. Sometimes our dreams and aspirations and entertainment must be met to keep us dreaming, aspiring and wanting to live life for the better.

NASA is about being Human as much as it is about discovery and both of those are more important to me than if it turns a profit.

Did Alexander's importing Artisans and Actors, to build stages and perform plays, in the middle of War, have a cost benefit? I guess if winning is important - maybe? It's not always apparent why it's important to spend money on things like going to the moon. But, it is important.

 

[kmguru]

China's brief period as a navel power brought them great wealth and power. They had, by far, the greatest navy in the world. They even had gunpowder. They could have conquered the world. Instead, they turned inward and stagnated. That is the risk we take. If we're not out there on the cutting edge. If we abandon space exploration and leave it to India and China, we are giving up on the future.

Very well said regarding China. They will not make the same mistake again. Too much suffering on the Long March. But we did not learn...we want to repeat their mistake and some day will have our Long March or second Civil War.....

 

[joepistole]

It might be a good idea to have a section on your tax form that allows individuals to donate money to NASA. I would be game.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Obama is projecting gigantic deficits as far as the eye can see. Giving up on space now is like a kid taking some time off from college. They rarely end up ever going back.

I see nothing preventing us from going back to manned missions, once we have the revenues to pay for them. It seems silly to me to keep doing something out of fear that if we stop we may never return to it. If it's not worth returning to, then it was probably not worth the effort in the first place.

The kid going to college analogy is off. The reason people (individuals) do not return to college after savings permit it is a combination of time constraints and opportunity costs. In the grand schedme of things, if you look at many people who would like to go back to college, some do and others don't. In a nation of billions with more being born every day, there will always be some capacity for people to return to this endeavor and so some will (unless political leader refuse to alow it, which seems unlikely).

Yes, but basic science is not as "sexy" and doesn't inspire the public the way manned space missions do.

Again, I would say that pursuing anything as a national policy because it is "sexy" rather than out of a desire to obtain the benefits it yields is going to lead to needless waste. The great tragedy of American science is that we based our commitment to it around defeating communism, and now that communism is no issue, we struggle with reasons to pursue it.

Science rocks so hard, I guess, that a rank "appeal to emotion" is the logical fallacy of choice to trick people into it.

I'd agree. But your analogy is off. I'd compare fully funding NASA to the family eating out at McDonalds once in a while as a treat, or maybe catching a movie. Normal ways of blowing off steam that no one would criticize even a poor family for indulging in on occasion.

That is billions of dollars worth of McDonalds though. Less flippantly, the federal budget in 2008 was about $2.9 trillion (which was before the stimulus, but after the wasteful wars...still let's take that as a rough measure of a "baseline", non-stimulus affected, federal budget for the sake of the argument), NASA's budget for the same year was $17.318 billion. That is 0.597% of the federal budget. That means, under those pre-crisis baselines, you could only afford 167.5 of those Happy Meals, before you'd be broke. If you ate every meal at this hypothetical McDonalds, you could afford to eat only every other day, and that assumes you pay no rent, utilities or anything else that year. (Obviously, if you think the real "ideal" federal budget is less than $2.9 trillion, then the relative proportion of NASA's share, if the dollar amount were cut, would get larger.)

So I think the truth is between our two analogies. It's not quite an extravagant vacation, but it's not McD's either. It is, however, a non-trivial commitment of resources.

 

[Michael]

It might be a good idea to have a section on your tax form that allows individuals to donate money to NASA. I would be game.

Someone said as much about the Iraq War!

 

[joepistole]

Someone said as much about the Iraq War!

I would not have donated to the Iraq wars I or II.