Nasa worth it? (thread split)

[Yugl]

It's only a contradiction when you assume that the past that people are latching onto is the past that actually existed 60 years ago, and I've already addressed the fact that they're quite different things. What people want is the illusion of the past, whereas in the real past what people wanted was a future which later became an illusion. In both cases, people desired something that did not exist - the change now is in the focus of that desire.

It is that past you're going to use if you're making the "NASA brought us technology" argument.

I was watching Cowboys and Aliens the other day, and thought to myself "this is like 1870. These fuckers don't even have the internal combustion engine, and they'll be landing on the fucking MOON in less than 100 years."

And then I think, we landed on the fucking MOON and we didn't even have computers!

And now I'm like, we have computers, we can land on the moon, what have we really done in my lifetime?

Angry Birds?

Fuck.

We did have computers before landing on the moon.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Yeah. Thing is, the average cell phone has more computing power than any of the apollo crafts. and we use it to play angry birds.

[Stanislaw]

We did have computers before landing on the moon.

I think he means that we didn't have computers back then that had specs even remotely close to today's modern standards that it really couldn't be called a computer now. Nowadays you can build the Apollo Guidance Computer they used back then in your basement. And to think, back then this stuff was the top of the line.

Given the operating specs on the thing, sometimes I wonder if those Lunar Landing conspiracy theories actually have something going for them. (not that I believe it)

[Greatguardian]

It is that past you're going to use if you're making the "NASA brought us technology" argument.

And there's a reason I haven't used said argument.

NASA's past success has less to do with budgeting and more to do with the cultural makeup of the 60's and 70's. There's also the fact that we now know that the future people wanted in the 50's/60's/70's is outside of our abilities. We can't go back to wanting that near-future while simultaneously accepting that said future cannot exist in our lifetimes.

I think NASA could do great things, but that's utilizing my personal definition of great. I am cognizant of the fact that many people do not currently value the sciences, exploration, or further understanding of our surroundings. I know that many people will call it a waste of money, and will oppose such advances at every step. I don't think it's possible for any organization to flourish with such opposition - nor do I think it's possible to simply remove such opposition overnight. People have forgotten how to dream and as why it's important to do so.

I think the world needs a new Gene Roddenberry. The public forum has lacked good science fiction for quite some time. I don't mean space operas or science dramas, as those are everywhere, but humanist science fiction with a real point to it. People need something to look forward to, even if it goes beyond themselves or their lifetimes. That is the sort of cultural shift which really brings us both things like NASA and the technology it, and others, develop. The entity of NASA is far less important than what it represents.

[Yugl]

I'm not accusing you of using that argument; I'm pointing out conflicting views on the matter.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Stargate SG-1 was pretty goddamn awesome. Atlantis, too. I even liked SGU but it wasn't as popular. Alas, they're all cancelled now, and the sets have all been dismantled, so revivals are unlikely.

I don't think they ever aired on anything but Sci-Fi, though, which means their audience is/was much more limited than Star Trek.

[hey]

Yeah. Thing is, the average cell phone has more computing power than any of the apollo crafts. and we use it to play angry birds.

They would have played angry birds too, but their computers couldn't handle it.

Your implication that we don't take advantage of modern computing power is absurd. Just because the average person isn't using their computers to do anything profoundly significant for science doesn't mean others aren't. Oh, wait...they are.

[guartz]

Well, one thing I can recommend. If you feel passionately about it, why not start Fund NASA campaign. Set up a voluntary service and collect funds for NASA. Nobody is doing this right now, and I doubt it's even set up for donations.. but think about how many people in U.S.A, well hell, around the world would contribute?

edit:

Interesting note. There is a government agency that already gets majority of it's funding from donations. NPR. So at least there is that, a precedent.

[Greatguardian]

Stargate SG-1 was pretty goddamn awesome. Atlantis, too. I even liked SGU but it wasn't as popular. Alas, they're all cancelled now, and the sets have all been dismantled, so revivals are unlikely.

I don't think they ever aired on anything but Sci-Fi, though, which means their audience is/was much more limited than Star Trek.

Atlantis wasn't science fiction. It was a space opera. SG-1 did touch on sci-fi with varying degrees of success, but it was set in the present rather than the future and had to cripple itself because of that.

We're working with different definitions of the science fiction genre.

Well, one thing I can recommend. If you feel passionately about it, why not start Fund NASA campaign. Set up a voluntary service and collect funds for NASA. Nobody is doing this right now, and I doubt it's even set up for donations.. but think about how many people in U.S.A, well hell, around the world would contribute?

edit:

Interesting note. There is a government agency that already gets majority of it's funding from donations. NPR. So at least there is that, a precedent.

Someone hasn't read the thread.

[guartz]

Why, what's been said GreatGuardian?

[BaneTheBrawler]

They would have played angry birds too, but their computers couldn't handle it.

Your implication that we don't take advantage of modern computing power is absurd. Just because the average person isn't using their computers to do anything profoundly significant for science doesn't mean others aren't. Oh, wait...they are.

Nah, I actually wasn't making a big deal of it. It was more of a "We're a silly species" type comment. i mean we have this vast technology at our disposal, and one of the most popular things to do with it is fling birds at pigs. because we're silly. obviously we do some meaningful, cool shit, too.

Edit: Also, I've always been a little iffy on the distinction between sci-fi and space opera. Probably because I don't really know anything about opera.

[Greatguardian]

Nah, I actually wasn't making a big deal of it. It was more of a "We're a silly species" type comment. i mean we have this vast technology at our disposal, and one of the most popular things to do with it is fling birds at pigs. because we're silly. obviously we do some meaningful, cool shit, too.

Edit: Also, I've always been a little iffy on the distinction between sci-fi and space opera. Probably because I don't really know anything about opera.

A space opera is essentially just a show that takes place in a "scifi" setting, but whose story could just as easily take place anywhere else and has little other connection to the science fiction genre. Shows like ST: Deep Space 9, Stargate: Atlantis, and all of Star Wars are space operas because they're essentially just dramas that happen to take place in space.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I see. I'm still a little confused by how that's different from sci-fi as a whole, though, since most stories can be set anywhere you want if you change enough stuff. Not a big deal, it's just something I've never understood and I'm curious.

Edit: I guess I'm asking what your definition of sci-fi is.

[ronin sparthos]

I think what GG is trying to get at is that in a pure science fiction series you have a futuristic setting and the viewer is plopped into observing the various going-ons of the setting and characters but are also exposed to devices and concepts that are beyond our current technology but are interesting enough to get people thinking that it could be true. These devices are pivotal to the structure of the story.

Let's use Star Trek.

TNG and TOS take place in the future, have compartmentalized episodes (for the most part), introduce us to a variety of tech that sound and function well enough to be believable (for the most part) and overall attempt to convey a future that we could aspire to and indeed we have. Tablet computers, talking computers, tricorders and communication badges have all developed to some degree partly because of the popularity of Star Trek in popular culture.

On the other hand a space opera would be like Deep Space Nine where events occur in a future setting but the actual specifics of the tech and settings are nothing more than backdrops for the development of characters and factions. Whereas TNG and TOS stressed exploration and new species DS9 focused on its characters, political and religious conflicts within the confines of a space environment. The series could have easily taken place elsewhere and still maintained its integrity.

[Siatdiat]

I've always felt what made the best sci fi was inclusion of philosophy of science type concepts. Or just straight up philosophical concepts when faced with questions that can only be asked in such a setting.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Okay. That makes it more clear. I kinda thought SG-1 and Atlantis did a mix of those, although I'd certainly agree Atlantis was more operatic than SG-1.

I dunno how much you could really do, though. So much has already been done, and we've made such huge progress IRL, that there's not a whole lot that would be a new concept. Of course, the problem with such a statement is that it's kinda self-fulfilling... until it isn't. So yeah, I guess we do need another Roddenberry. I certainly wouldn't mind, I've enjoyed his work. Except the ending to Voyager, although that wasn't really him. Fucking time travel. Terrible plot device. Unless it's the main thing, like Doctor Who.

Anyway, on-topic, I'm all for NASA. Anything that gets us closer to even a shadow of the awesome stuff in the various sci-fi/space-opera/etc would get a blank check if I had my way. Obviously I want some oversight and whatnot to avoid fraud and inefficiency, too, since that's detrimental to the awesomesauce.

[Greatguardian]

Sparthos has a good chunk of it, yes.

As a genre, Science Fiction has historically served as a device for political commentary. This is most prevalent in scifi literature, especially utopic and dystopic novels. Star Trek TOS and TNG both served as political mouthpieces for Roddenberry, a secular humanist and optimist. The original Star Trek universe was designed around the premise that humanity was able to become unilaterally "better" without fundamentally changing its core values - ethics, morals, and justice remained intact and not perverted while things like corruption, greed, and materialism were almost entirely stamped out.

The fundamental difference between science fiction and science drama is the fact that science fiction has an underlying message and a purpose beyond entertainment, while the latter is just a cool story that happens to take place in a futuristic setting. Using both TOS and TNG, Roddenberry held a discourse on a plethora of political talking points including the Vietnam war, Communism, Socialism, the Red scare/McCarthyism, American Consumerism, Capitalism, Slavery, Abortion, Racism (about a million times), Sexism and Feminism, the Military Industrial Complex, Isolationism, Homosexuality, and Religion.

The United Federation of Planets itself is both economically socialist and culturally atheist - this is extremely intentional. While this theme appears multiple times in both TOS and TNG, the season finale of Season 1 of TNG "The Neutral Zone" addressed these issues directly by introducing a character from the mid-21st century who was cryogenically frozen and was found by the Enterprise-D. This character, a banker who was designed to represent Wall St and corporate America, had a great deal of trouble accepting the fact that his stocks and his money from the 21st century no longer exist - hell, that money itself no longer exists.

Of course, after Roddenberry's death, newer iterations of Star Trek became less about his political agenda and more about propagating the franchise, which is why you got shows like Deep Space 9 where there was no underlying political message, the Socialist/Atheist theme of the previous shows had been dropped, and the characters became the stars of the show. Deep Space 9 was, therefore, a space opera rather than science fiction.

[Rhyis.]

Space Opera is just a subsection of Sci-fi, like Science Fantasy or Cyberpunk. It's a way to classify a more specified version of science fiction. Anything that involves imaginary futuristic settings, futuristic technology, time travel, aliens, paranormal shit, etc is science fiction.

So he wasn't wrong by calling those shows sci-fi, 'cause everything under the sun is classified as sci-fi. Including anything that's considered a space opera. Just sayin'.

[Greatguardian]

Space Opera is just a subsection of Sci-fi, like Science Fantasy or Cyberpunk. It's a way to classify a more specified version of science fiction. Anything that involves imaginary futuristic settings, futuristic technology, time travel, aliens, paranormal shit, etc is science fiction. Just sayin'.

That is one way that it is defined, yes. The literary world does love definitions. I subscribe to one interpretation of the genre out of many. As to which is any more or less correct than the other, that's something academics have kept themselves busy with for quite some time.

[Indalecia]

We had Firefly, but Fox said "fuck that shit"