Poll: Space Exploration is it or isn't it a 'waste' of time & money? (Page 2)

hellbhoy: WOW SITS that was some epic novel you typed there with cut and copy and counter argument !.

OK I'll accept the "theologists" blunder and take it right up the butthole DUH,I meant to type theorists and may have used the spell check too hastily !.You happier now ?

SITS did you read the full USA today article ? I was hinting more to the 'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons part which leans to space other than the Chinese land based weapons because they don't have the tech know how to put a laser weapon onto space yet as a rebuttal to you questioning my only in films space laser weapons exist.

SITS copies and pastes,
hellbhoy says:
"Also space and it's separation from the earths atmosphere is a debatable question these days with certain satellites in a lower orbit and short life span using motion to keep it's orbit even in a low atmosphere and why it circles the earth at speed to maintain it's height above the earth in a slingshot orbit.". ? SITS prove me wrong there then !.

SITS says:
Apparently, you ARE daft. Nobody is creating "inventions made in space." There aren't factories in orbit or anything. Those inventions are created here on earth, and USED in space.

I agree there are no factories in space coz that's just DAFT,so why do they experiment up in space then ?.Are they not experimenting to see if zero gravity has any benefits somehow before they patent it and sell it for a fortune ?.That would come under inventing would it not ?.

Back to the question ! space exploration is not a waste of time but is certainly a waste of tax payers money by most of what is supposedly called space exploration other than satellites servicing scientific or humanitarian purposes at the cost of billions a year which could easily go to better earthly humanitarian purposes.

StuckInTheSixties:

You're writing one thing, getting a reply about it, then you're writing another thing, and pretending it's the first thing.

You're citing an article as a reference to something that the article doesn't even say. Yes, I read your article. If you think I'm incorrectly assessing your statements in relation to the article, I suggest you do this to prove me wrong:

~~Copy the part of your statement that you've reference the article to corroborate.
~~ Then directly below it, copy the portion of the article where it says the same thing.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

hellbhoy: Hey I'm not a cut n paste troll at heart.

Thought I asked you to prove me wrong !.And can't you read ?.

'Star Wars' meets reality? Military testing laser weapons.

Star Wars program Hmmmmm says it all ! and is not fiction.

StuckInTheSixties:

If "Star Wars program" "says it all," then why ask me if I read the article?

At this point, you're using the "Nuh-UHHHH !!" argument. You make statements, refuse to back them up, refuse to even use your own references, and then blame the reader for not agreeing with you.

I used YOUR reference to refute YOUR statement, and you refuse to cite YOUR reference in YOUR defense.

"Nuh-UHHHHH! " you figuratively argue.

hellbhoy: SITS I do hate googling for stuff to cut and paste like a troll but here's just some I found in seconds !remember just SOME although one is just a picture.

http://blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/2011/01/is-this-a-good-idea-military-satellites-equipped-with-death-rays.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/wt_980102.htm

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/337471/view

You may point out reading them that the military are using Boeings but this is just a precursor but they are spending billions on a laser firing satellite for combat or other covert operation,and why the hell are you just arguing for the sake of getting one over dude.Laser firing satellites are a weapon of the future as you won't have to deploy any other force other than position a satellite and fire.So actual fact is the STAR WARS program is in full operation although I'll concede it'll probably be under a different name these days.Why don't you just bloody well agree your government is spending billions of your tax dollars on a flipping laser firing military satellite FFS even if the satellite won't function as they might want after trillions of dollars ?.Wouldn't be the first time a government has wasted billions or trillions on failed military hardware would it ?.

So in answer to the topic again ! yes space exploration is mostly a waste of money if the benefits are not purely scientific like Hubble or or for comms.

StuckInTheSixties:

Now you're changing your position.

The very first sentence you typed as you entered this thread was:

"We spend billions or trillions on space exploration while people sleep on the street in the richer Western societies.Unless the investiture gave us "zero point energy" and endless cheap power I see no point in all that money be wasted."

Now you're saying:

"space exploration is mostly a waste of money if the benefits are not purely scientific like Hubble or or for comms."

Okay, let's look at your links:

Link #1. "What if the Pentagon had killer satellites equipped with lasers, which enabled ground controllers to pinpoint a target--a ship, a building, perhaps even an individual enemy combatant--and cause it (or him) to vanish without a trace? Should we try to develop such a weapon? Is it even possible?"

That's how the article opens. The operative words are "WHAT IF ..." It's just speculating. "What if ...?"

Reading the entire article, toward the end, it says (emphasis added in CAPS) :

"in view of all this, I'd have to say that if the Chinese military decides to follow Shen's advice and spend many, many billions of dollars to develop space-based laser weapons THAT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER WORK, I'm all for it."

Link #2: This article pertains to military research being conducted with something called the MIRCL, which is a very LOW-POWER laser. This is not the "laser satellite that can fry a person at a molecular level in a crowd of people to within a fraction of a millimetre ?" you were ranting about earlier, is it?

Link #3: Just a pretty picture, not even a photograph, of the artists IMAGINED space weapons. That you'd include that as your "argument" speaks volumes for the validity of your "argument." It's like arguing that unicorns exist by showing a painting of a unicorn.

Dude, you're making this argument that investing in space-based military weaponry is not a good thing. Where in this thread is anyone saying otherwise?

hellbhoy: Well SITS if that's your stance and opinion there RASPPPP.What your basically saying is the US is not investing extraordinary amounts of money in satellite laser weapon technology then ? doesn't matter does it ?.

Regardless of dodgy links I posted you still want to argue ! sorry debate about the fact that the thread mentioned space exploration ! I repeat space exploration in general meaning all of it and not just what's good space exploration.I'm not going to post more links so you can just have fun cutting and pasting YOUR opinion when I DO KNOW the US is spending money on how to make a more efficient,more accurate and more powerful laser weapon in space that could eventually could fry someone at a molecular level.Ask the Pentagon if they wouldn't mind making such a weapon then ! and get a that's classified answer and why there is not much on the web about coz it's fecking TOP SECRET.I'm sure if it was available they would have used it on Osama saving countless American lives.

So may I ask you SITS in a yes or no answer,do you think the military are in progress creating such a weapon ?.

StuckInTheSixties:

hellbhoy says:
"Well SITS if that's your stance and opinion there RASPPPP.What your basically saying is the US is not investing extraordinary amounts of money in satellite laser weapon technology then ? doesn't matter does it ?."

Dude, you seem to have a reading impediment. It appears you read words, but see something other than what those words say. You demonstrated this by posting links to articles that contain things other than what you said they contain, and reading my posts and seeing things other than what I actually said.

Nowhere have I said that the US is not investing "money in satellite laser weapon technology."

hellbhoy says:
"So may I ask you SITS in a yes or no answer,do you think the military are in progress creating such a weapon ?"

"... such a weapon ..."

WHICH weapon?

The weapon described in the second of those three links you provided?

Yes.

The imaginary weapon you originally referred to that "can fry a person at a molecular level in a crowd of people to within a fraction of a millimetre ?"

No.

Funny that on one hand, you insist that such a weapon exists. But on the other hand, you say that you can't document that because "that's classified answer and why there is not much on the web about coz it's fecking TOP SECRET"

Then where are you getting your information about the existence of such a weapon? (My guess is your imagination augmented by movies and television.)

hellbhoy: SITS whatever dude,you say we can have a land based laser weapon but not a space based laser weapon ?.This is my last link on the subject,where is your info and links that they are not in development ? and shows what the military are actually developing.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-war2.htm

SITS says ;
Then where are you getting your information about the existence of such a weapon? (My guess is your imagination augmented by movies and television.)

How about the same flipping source you get all your info "THE INTERNET",I keep posting stuff that leans towards such a weapon in development and none that says they are not !.Yes I do like SCI FI movies but I do know what is science fiction and science fact.

StuckInTheSixties:

hellbhoy says:
"... you say we can have a land based laser weapon but not a space based laser weapon ?"

Again, you're reading my words (or maybe not), but then saying that I've stated something else entirely. Nowhere did I say that. Nowhere did I imply that.

hellbhoy says:
"... where is your info and links that they are not in development ?"

YOU, not me, have been making these silly claims about the existence of a weapon that "can fry a person at a molecular level in a crowd of people to within a fraction of a millimetre ?" Yet you expect ME to prove YOUR claim wrong. If I made the claim that there was a secret herd of magic unicorns living in the basement of Buckingham Palace, could I expect YOU to prove otherwise? When they are disputed, it's up to the claimant to prove their claims, not the other way around.

" ... shows what the military are actually developing. [followed by a link]"

How many times must this be said? No one is disputing that there is military development of space technology. I acknowledged that in my very first post in this thread, before you entered it. I've acknowledged that repeatedly henceforth.

hellbhoy says:
"I keep posting stuff that leans towards such a weapon in development ..."

The operative phrase there is "leans. towards." Anyone can post stuff that "leans towards" any claim made.

hellbhoy says:
"... and none that says they are not !."

You seem to be saying that since you haven't posted links to any information that indicates against your silly claims, that verifies them. Wow! What twisted "logic!"

I haven't posted any links to indicate that the Queen of England is actually a 10,000 year old space alien from Uranus. By your "logic," that must mean that the Queen of England is, in fact, a 10,000 year old space alien from Uranus.

hellbhoy: SITS you are an idiot sometimes.

I don't care a rats arse about the queen of England coz I'm SCOTTISH ya muppet,akin to me saying your Canadian.

StuckInTheSixties:

My reference to the Queen of England had no bearing on your nationality, ethnicity, or anything else connected to you.

One Bar: As a native of the county of Scotland your duty us to serve The Queen. And amuse us all by performing comedy football.

One Bar: I bet SITS had never heard of Scotland until Braveheart came out.

StuckInTheSixties:

I was in the chorus of my high school production of "Brigadoon," so I was well aware of you tartan-patterned, kilt-wearing, caber-tossing, whiskey-drinking bagpipe blowers.

One Bar: I'm not Scottish, I'm English. We're much more classy and civilised.

hellbhoy: There you go SITS you just proved your an arrogant arsehole with that reply.The US drinks most of our whisky .... did you see the spelling there SITS only scotch whisky is spelt like that anything else is just whiskey like all that mush from the states pretending to be whisky.

I could insult America more than you can insult Scotland EVER.

Back to topic ERM well said all I have to SITS your paying for many failed expensive space explorations from your own pocket dude.How you feel about that ?.

hellbhoy: One Bar ye I'm sure you English are with last years riots in search of a free TV ha ha.

One Bar: Please go easy on Sits. He's my friend.

StuckInTheSixties:

hellbhoy says:
"There you go SITS you just proved your an arrogant arsehole with that reply."

That was OBVIOUSLY said in jest, you numbskull. I have no quarrel with the Scottish. I have a good-sized fraction of Scottish blood in my veins.

hellbhoy says:
"Back to topic ERM well said all I have to SITS your paying for many failed expensive space explorations from your own pocket dude.How you feel about that ?."

I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on space exploration. I wish that a bigger percentage of my taxes was spent that way.

hellbhoy: He's giving me a hard time but it's all fun,not like I'd lose my temper coz it's all good banter.

One Bar: I know. Sits is a great troll. Don't ever let him get to ya - always remember he's just trying to provoke a reaction.

hellbhoy: HA HA One Bar I know he does coz he is American he thinks he is automatically intellectually superior by birth.

Azimuth_Predator: Americans are not smart. George Bush 8 years as president lol
There are smart Americans though. Just not the Majority

Comrade_: ey ey keep the country bashing to a zero.