Curiosity is at Mars and we are still sitting in our chairs

[Barrington314mx]

I heard a factoid the other day, don't know if it's true or not... that on one year's defense budget 25,000,000 kids could be sent to college.

Our country used to be #1 due to its advancements in science and technology, and while I'd give almost anything to go dancing this weekend, I'd also rather not pull funds from science to pay for science. Why not pull from the war to insure our future advancements?

and what would then happen if everyone had a college education? would robots be making our food at mcdonalds?

[feisty]

and what would then happen if everyone had a college education? would robots be making our food at mcdonalds?

are you serious or joking, because I genuinely can't tell.

p.s. if this is a joke it's hillarious

[Lazlo]

To be fair, the Curiosity rover is stuck on wheels too.

Someone shut this guy up, please :-)

Why? These are cracking me up!

[paolocipolla]

I think Paolo's point is that good science is not the only thing involved. Commitment and motivation are needed. Basic research is a natural part of human nature, but results bettering the human condition are still spin off. Getting noticed, quick bang for the bucks and so on are the motivators.
Brilliant minds only are not the answer to humanitarian and medical needs.

Yes, good scienze is not the only factor.

Nasa has good scientists, a good organization, it is GOAL driven and has money too.
This way they went to the moon and now landed one more robot on mars etc.

Paolo

[paolocipolla]

Sure man, you win. If we hadn't spent the 2B on the mars mission we would all be walking.

No I don't think so.

If you put 2B in SCI research in the current sistem many things could happen, but I don't think we all will walk.

I imagine that Wise would set up a global clinical trial net with 1000 centers testing UCB+Li and also other things of course..
There would be lots more useless studies about SCI and more SCI models very distants from reality would be created and the conclusion would be always that more studies are needed before moving on humans.

Finally some good researchers would make some significant progress, but likely not enough to get we all walking.

Since you have worked for NASA, do you think that if NASA had the goal to cure SCI in 10 years would they be able to make it?

Paolo

P.S. please don't answer if you are in severe pain and/or if you are having a bad day, wait to feel good first

[paolocipolla]

Yep. It's ridiculous to draw such conclusions.

And no one owes us anything, anyway.

Yes it's ridiculous to draw such conclusion.

Paolo

[titanium4motion]

Carbon fiber

I thought we got titanium chairs because of NASA?

No not titanium but carbon fiber. Titanium was discovered in 1791.

Ti

[addiesue]

lol thanks for the correction. I was being facetious anyway.

[BSgimp]

We should be looking at defense budget not 4/10 of a penny on a tax dollar NASA is getting.
If we follow this rather ridiculous argument we can apply it to any circumstance we want. For instance .. lets stop buying useless gadgets and spend all the money on SCI or lets stop paying off the banks and put billions in SCI cure where the return is a big question mark. See where I am going with this?

Well, in NASA case we would be robbing next generation from inspiration which is in fact is much needed in the time of crisis that is present.

I dont think you are looking for money in the right place. Nasa is giving jobs to a very talented bunch that have an actual impact on world. I will go with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this one. Read his latest book. Its a good read. Watch this clip and tell me he doesnt have a valid argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

[paolocipolla]

We should be looking at defense budget not 4/10 of a penny on a tax dollar NASA is getting.
If we follow this rather ridiculous argument we can apply it to any circumstance we want. For instance .. lets stop buying useless gadgets and spend all the money on SCI or lets stop paying off the banks and put billions in SCI cure where the return is a big question mark. See where I am going with this?

Well, in NASA case we would be robbing next generation from inspiration which is in fact is much needed in the time of crisis that is present.

I dont think you are looking for money in the right place. Nasa is giving jobs to a very talented bunch that have an actual impact on world. I will go with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this one. Read his latest book. Its a good read. Watch this clip and tell me he doesnt have a valid argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

BSgimp,

here NASA to me was just a point to start a discussion to touch several issues.(I personally love NASA & what they have been doing since it has been created. For example they had to kick me off from Houston center when they were closing it. Then I went back next day to spend another day there).
I think that if SCI cure would be considered a priority by people who allocate federal $ we would have the money we need, probably it makes more sense to cut from defense budget than from NASA budget or maybe from something else, I don't know for sure.

Then once we have the money we still have to find the cure, which could be compared to going to the moon after Kennedy decided that was the goal and made the money available.

Paolo

[khmorgan]

Sure man, you win. If we hadn't spent the 2B on the mars mission we would all be walking.

Sorry, but I must disagree. Nixon's War on Cancer is a good example. He allocated $10B to cure cancer in the early '70s. They did a lot of good work, but they didn't cure cancer.

Certainly, allocating some of the $2B spent on Curiosity would have helped SCI research a lot, but money doesn't cure disease, people do. More money would attract more good people -- as well as more hangers on.

Also, this country really needs more mathematicians and engineers than walking SCIs. I don't like it, but the US has lost its technical edge. We turn out more MBAs than engineers.

What I like about the Mars missions is that they are not spending many more billions trying to send people. They are solving problems by creating smart machines, not by sending people to solve them.

Frankly, I suspect if they had scraped the Mars mission and reallocated the money to medical research, SCI research wouldn't have seen a penny. Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. are far better organized.

If you want something at NASA to complain about, what about the International Space Station. That has a U.S. budget of about $2B / year.

Of course, for the Department of Defence, that is pocket money. So, why not look to the DoD for more SCI funding?

[t8burst]

Since you have worked for NASA, do you think that if NASA had the goal to cure SCI in 10 years would they be able to make it?

Paolo

P.S. please don't answer if you are in severe pain and/or if you are having a bad day, wait to feel good first

I am on vacation, so am nice and relaxed. No, NASA couldn't cure SCI even with its whole budget and 10 years. It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (I worked in the Aeronautics part). Basically planes and space, there are some medical resources for studying the effects of gravity (or the lack of it) on the human body but not extensive infrastructure for medical research. If the US government wanted to make it a national goal to cure SCI like it made landing on the moon NASA would not be the agency to do it.

The sad fact is Paolo is people really don't get excited about curing SCI, but do get excited about a robot SUV with lasers on Mars. Hell, people care more about saving dogs and cats than they do about us. Like Fiesty I would rather stop pouring money down the drain in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund things like SCI research that take it from stuff that NASA does that actually does do some good (even if that good is hard to quantify). I think I said it before, what we need someone like Brad Pitt to end up with SCI before we have a chance of getting the money we need to get serious about curing SCI. Until then we are just a fringe group that people would rather forget about.

[t8burst]

You need to check your sarcasm detector.

Sorry, but I must disagree. Nixon's War on Cancer is a good example. He allocated $10B to cure cancer in the early '70s. They did a lot of good work, but they didn't cure cancer.

Certainly, allocating some of the $2B spent on Curiosity would have helped SCI research a lot, but money doesn't cure disease, people do. More money would attract more good people -- as well as more hangers on.

Also, this country really needs more mathematicians and engineers than walking SCIs. I don't like it, but the US has lost its technical edge. We turn out more MBAs than engineers.

What I like about the Mars missions is that they are not spending many more billions trying to send people. They are solving problems by creating smart machines, not by sending people to solve them.

Frankly, I suspect if they had scraped the Mars mission and reallocated the money to medical research, SCI research wouldn't have seen a penny. Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. are far better organized.

If you want something at NASA to complain about, what about the International Space Station. That has a U.S. budget of about $2B / year.

Of course, for the Department of Defence, that is pocket money. So, why not look to the DoD for more SCI funding?

[paolocipolla]

I am on vacation, so am nice and relaxed. No, NASA couldn't cure SCI even with its whole budget and 10 years. It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (I worked in the Aeronautics part). Basically planes and space, there are some medical resources for studying the effects of gravity (or the lack of it) on the human body but not extensive infrastructure for medical research. If the US government wanted to make it a national goal to cure SCI like it made landing on the moon NASA would not be the agency to do it.

The sad fact is Paolo is people really don't get excited about curing SCI, but do get excited about a robot SUV with lasers on Mars. Hell, people care more about saving dogs and cats than they do about us. Like Fiesty I would rather stop pouring money down the drain in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund things like SCI research that take it from stuff that NASA does that actually does do some good (even if that good is hard to quantify). I think I said it before, what we need someone like Brad Pitt to end up with SCI before we have a chance of getting the money we need to get serious about curing SCI. Until then we are just a fringe group that people would rather forget about.

Sorry T8, my question wasn't clear.

I know what NASA is about, but I don't know how closely you have been following SCI research... what I wanted to say was that if an org like NASA that was about curing deseases existed do you think we would see a cure in 10 years if this hypothetical org would set the goal of curing SCI?
I have the impression that NASA is much more efficent in delivering results then medical research, but that IMO it is more because of the way it is organized than because of budget reasons.

I agree about Afghanistan and Iraq, but I worry very much that if we just put more money in SCI research most of them would just go down the drain without delivering a cure or at least significan knowledge toward curing SCI.

Paolo

[t8burst]

Sorry, took you too literally. The answer to your question is I don't know. Landing on the moon or mars isn't "discovering" anything. It is an incredibly complex engineering problem but it is not like the equations used have changed since the newton postulated force = mass * acceleration (sorry we don't travel fast enough to need non-newtonian physics). I am not a biologist but my understanding is that we don't actually know how to cure SCI and all that is left is a lot of non-discovery, taking the cure and making it a "product". Therefore it is basically a different problem. 1000 scientists with 10B dollars might not find the cure but one brilliant doctor with a 500K grant might.

Don't get me wrong, I think our chances would be a lot better if there was a "SCIA" who mission was to cure SCI and had billions in funding. But it is not like a lunar mission or even landing a man on mars. We actually know how to put a person on mars, we just don't want to pay the price. So who knows if a concentrated organization is the key? They just spend a lot of money going down the wrong path. Like I said in my previous email, people just don't care. If they did that is our best bet, lots of money and lots of universities do the research which I think is a better path.

Sorry T8, my question wasn't clear.

I know what NASA is about, but I don't know how closely you have been following SCI research... what I wanted to say was that if an org like NASA that was about curing deseases existed do you think we would see a cure in 10 years if this hypothetical org would set the goal of curing SCI?
I have the impression that NASA is much more efficent in delivering results then medical research, but that IMO it is more because of the way it is organized than because of budget reasons.

I agree about Afghanistan and Iraq, but I worry very much that if we just put more money in SCI research most of them would just go down the drain without delivering a cure or at least significan knowledge toward curing SCI.

Paolo