Remember The Apollo Program

These seem like a lot of rather un-Conservative uses for tax money

can take

What is stopping us from doing those things now? Most likely the same thin gs will stop us from doing those things even if we stopped funding NASA.

It's rather like when people say it is pointless to provide aid to poor cou ntries where people are starving. They say the problem is not a lack of fo od in the world or even in those countries. The problem is political issue s and corruption that funnels off the aid provided to make the rich richer.

So if we don't spend on things like NASA, what will happen to the money? M ost likely more tax breaks for the wealthy.

The Minuteman ICBM, deployed in 1962, had an on-board computer and an inertial guidance system.

Military requirements drove cutting-edge technology.

Besides, NASA could have done a lot of science, not forgetting Astronautics, for the cost of putting a few boots on the moon.

Maybe, but we didn't need men up there to collect moon dirt.

Better to spend that money returning Mars dirt. Manned spaceflight is PR, money, and politics, not science.

Why do you think that? Because they might help people?

The Gemini computer had no integrated circuits, unless you count thick film hybrid modules as "integrated", Certainly nothing monolithic.

piglet

The motivation for Apollo was primarily military and political, but it wound up being a very valuable cultural achievement. Hubble is the same way.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(jhudak's posts aren't coming up properly in Thunderbird at the moment, so I'm answering him here.)

The PDP-1 was not flip-chip, it was all through-hole parts on boards. See e.g.

Flip-chip, aka "controlled collapse chip connect" (C4) was invented by IBM for the System 360. See e.g. (Written by some of my old colleagues at IBM Research.)

But that wasn't the point. Kennedy committed the prestige of the United States to putting a man on the moon a year after the end of his putative second term....

The reason was the black eye the US had received from Sputnik, followed up by Gagarin's flight in Vostok 1. It wasn't manned space flight that was really in view, but rather nuclear missiles. Since all the nuke stuff was very hush-hush, the 'civilian' space flights were really all anybody had to go on when deciding who was ahead.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Hubble did some serious science; the ISS doesn't.

Dec had little transistor-based logic boards, flipflops and gates and such, that they called flip chips for some reason. They plugged into wire-wrapped backplanes.

snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:s0tnuel2n8lsda630dras24ent09j5j975@

Are we to believe that you actually got a clue about Trump?

Good job finally getting it right.

We *all* know that you're AlwaysWrong.

Always.

John Larkin's grasp of observational sciences is weak.

He won't appreciate what was learned from moon dirt, because he has no idea what there was to learn.

Dry land was very hostile to sea creatures. Lots them thought that he idea of exploring it was silly, and still live in the sea. John Larkin is descended from creatures who thought differently, but doesn't seem to have inherited their curiosity.

None of which John Larkin can specify, and none of which would have had the political support to get the money spent.

So what? All technology is an extension of existing technology. Everything new is an extension of existing technology.

It seems so. Middle Eastern sales peak in the six weeks around Ramadan. Maybe it's what fuels ISIS.

Unmanned combat aircraft, and ships, are drones, by definition. So that's a contentless statement. Since the Avro Arrow was a manned aircraft, it's also irrelevant.

John Larkin's grasp of what constitutes science is weal enough that he peddles denialist propaganda and thinks that it is "science".

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

So it appears that we are not the only ones thinking you are bogus.

You have something against hermetic sealed cans? Or was it some other packaging factor that kept you from having any sense?

Yeah.... sure.... "couldn't".

Only if John Larkin did the engineering.

Stay alive?

That's got it backwards. The military-industrial complex persuades US politicians to give them cost-plus-contracts.

It's also a bit strange to hear John Larkin asking for leaders who do something useful, when he stands four-square behind the US leader who more nearly useless than than any of his predecessors.

Trump got himself elected by promising to get Mexico to pay pay for building a useless border wall, and it hasn't happened, which hasn't surprised anybody - Trump was a well-known liar long before he was a presidential candidate.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The

Rockets and missiles and guidance systems. Imagine that.

What prompted all that? Oh yeah... something called "The Space Race". Not the race to the moon, but the race to have a nuclear warhead capable overhead 'bird' at the ready.

Our quest to ALSO get to the moon, however, not only gave us more focus than the USSR, it lit a fire under our asses.

And THAT fire under the ass aspect has driven scientific progess for millennia.

Go job of getting it so wrong, child.

We signed treaties that forbid orbiting nuclear weapons.

They don't help the kind of people who are likely to vote for conservatives.