Neil Tyson on Bill Maher

I like Neil and I don't like him. In this instance is an example of why I do like him.



He talks about how NASA's budget in 50 years doesn't equal what the bankers bailout was. How destructive this kind of spending is overall for humanity or us as a species and why this is bad.

I know we've heard it before right?

But do you disagree and can it be said enough?

Obviously we all agree so why isn't it changing?

a reply to: onequestion

You can't make money off space exploration within' the foreseeable future.
Only billionaires who have money to blow are pioneering commercial space travel. And that's just it, COMMERCIAL, meaning they want to make money off it. It sort of reminds me of the explorers back some 300+ years ago, only the rich nephews or sons got a ship and a crew together to just explore, for fame, and glory.

Only a handful of people benefit from making satellites and space ships, initially the engineers, or the few company's qualified to manufacture and machine parts, and the assembly team of extremely skilled millwrights, welders, and engineer's etc. to put it all together.
After that's all done, then what? you get that one massive project and then all you get is reputation.
The U.S government puts money into military because it's big, big money maker, that coupled with everyone in the world trying to topple their empire means they don't want to spend elsewhere.

NASA already made a feat of strength by going to the moon, and the government realized how ridiculously expensive it was, and people pretty much cannot go any further into space in the foreseeable future, and the public just lost interest by the like 4th time they went to the moon.

Thank you for sharing. S&f! I had no idea who Tyson was until I stumbled onto ATS. Ever since, I have been amazed at his sense of acuity in regard to space exploration. I would agree regarding his foresight about congress not representing the American structure of intellectual pursuits educationally/ career wise is totally spot on! It does seem a shame that we seem to only vote in lawyers and not those that would truly represent us -all America! It would be nice to see an A-Z representative congress...agriculture to Zoology! Throw out the sham of parties and get back to what our founders desired for our country....real representatives.

Though, the only dilemma is...as the system is now...only lawyers seem to get the funding to back them. Hmmm....most attorneys I have ever knew represent who ever pays their fees, whether they approve of the fee payer or not! So it should be no surprise that we the people are not ever really represented!

The U.S government puts money into military because it's big, big money maker,

Who makes the money? Not the government.

a reply to: CynConcepts
We need a breakaway civilization before this place turns into dust.

a reply to: strongfp

There is a very good reason for this. Let's compare ourselves to ants. Why are ants so insanely successful in everything they do? Because each and every ant will sacrifice themselves for the good of the community.

Are you willing to give up all your money/possessions to do your part in building a spacecraft? Of course your not, no one is, including myself. This is why humans will continue to struggle with important projects.

originally posted by: roadgravel

The U.S government puts money into military because it's big, big money maker,

Who makes the money? Not the government.

Manufacturing of weapons, and the company's that sell them make the money. Which brings tax revenue to the government.
Many, many workers are needed to make weapons.

Are you willing to give up all your money/possessions to do your part in building a spacecraft? Of course your not, no one is, including myself. This is why humans will continue to struggle with important projects.

I'm a welder, I manufacture 'things' for society everyday. I'd love to build a spacecraft, but in the end of things, will it pay me a wage I can rely on for the rest of my life? Probably not, I'd get laid off as soon as I did my small part. Even at that, I probably wouldn't even be considered to be on the team of people to make the thing.

Would I like to see a space craft or this satellite built tho? Of course! I am sure a lot of people do, but those people and me aren't in control of where that money goes.

originally posted by: illusion987
a reply to: strongfp

There is a very good reason for this. Let's compare ourselves to ants. Why are ants so insanely successful in everything they do? Because each and every ant will sacrifice themselves for the good of the community.

Are you willing to give up all your money/possessions to do your part in building a spacecraft? Of course your not, no one is, including myself. This is why humans will continue to struggle with important projects.

If I get a ticket on it then yes I would give up all connections/possessions with earth to go to mars or another place building up a self sustaining habitat. And the funny thing is I would probably in the end get more even in that more hostile environment since there would not be others feeding (like banks/lawyers/truth-benders/politicians) on my efforts so what I do is for myself and the people who have gone away with me.

The system we have is more in the way of progress than making us progress.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: onequestion
You can't make money off space exploration within' the foreseeable future.

Asteroid mining is a real thing. There's even a company ready to do it. Planetary Resources. There's a bill going through congress regarding the legality of asteroid mining.

Only billionaires who have money to blow are pioneering commercial space travel. And that's just it, COMMERCIAL, meaning they want to make money off it. It sort of reminds me of the explorers back some 300+ years ago, only the rich nephews or sons got a ship and a crew together to just explore, for fame, and glory.

Commercial maybe, but SpaceX is doing more than making commercial spaceships. They've already contracted a few flights with NASA. They've sent Japanese satellites into orbit. Read more.

As for wanting to make money off of it...that's capitalism. Why'd we go to the moon? Because we could. We had no intention of making that money back. That's also why NASA has such abysmal funding. It doesn't make money. That's not the purpose of government though.

Only a handful of people benefit from making satellites and space ships, initially the engineers, or the few company's qualified to manufacture and machine parts, and the assembly team of extremely skilled millwrights, welders, and engineer's etc. to put it all together.
After that's all done, then what? you get that one massive project and then all you get is reputation.
The U.S government puts money into military because it's big, big money maker, that coupled with everyone in the world trying to topple their empire means they don't want to spend elsewhere.

It's a big moneymaker for the same reason building rockets can be. Who made the rockets that put our GPS satellites in the air? Boeing? Lockheed? You think there's a big factory of government employees building disposable rockets in Texas or something? No, it's contracted out. Just like the military is. The military doesn't make money. The military spends money, the same concept you're using about tax revenue generated through employment can apply to space exploration.

The problem is, people don't care and the ones who do don't have the power to change it.

NASA already made a feat of strength by going to the moon, and the government realized how ridiculously expensive it was, and people pretty much cannot go any further into space in the foreseeable future, and the public just lost interest by the like 4th time they went to the moon.

We've done so much more than just 'go to the moon!' We've gone to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn's moon Titan!

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone..

We can go farther. We have to be willing to work for it though.

I understand your pessimism is trying to be real. But you have to hope that we can do better. They do have positions for welders open too:
Electron Beam Welder
Orbital Tube Welder
TIG Welder - Dragon

a reply to: onequestion

Dont like him much but love what he said here.

Hate Maher. Really.

What most stuck out for me is that government isnt composed of us. It is a very astute observation. Where is the rest of life represented in government? Where is everyone? Most are business leaders or lawyers.

a reply to: links234

I know what you are saying. That we can do it, and it is possible. But right now it's not.
You mentioned we have been to all the planets, only a handful of man made objects have gone past Jupiter. Out of how many years?

I was just simply trying to put things into a brutal honest truth, government only see's within a certain few years, not in the foreseeable future, just like Tyson said, because all they see is the almighty dollar, which has literally the attention span of less than a second in today's world. So, how far do you think they will look for space exploration?

As for the billionaires, they only invest, and investing into a space agency only means they have gained their interest, so he or she can use their facilities in the future.

a reply to: strongfp

I suppose it's relative. If you think of things in terms of 'what have we done since the mid-20th century' it can seem pretty small. If you think really long term...'what have we done in space since human civilization began?' Then you start to think that we've done an impossible amount of things in just the last 50 years.

What's Next For NASA?

NASA is designing and building the capabilities to send humans to explore the solar system, working toward a goal of sending humans to a captured, relocated asteroid in the next decade and landing humans on Mars in the 2030s.

Mars in 20 years. The idea that we'd go to the moon in 1949 was a joke, it was complete fiction. Now look at us. The future is bright, but we have to fight for it.

a reply to: onequestion
Never mind giving people something to "Dream about", people need something to Eat and basic shelter.

Mr. Tyson's is talking about the paltry sum needed to fund the next generation
Hubble telescope, and how that compares to other things our government
funds in comparison.

There is really no argument against his POV. You can easily tell by the crowd
response that popular sentiment is overwhelmingly on his side as well.

We 300 million Americans spend almost ONE/HALF of the entire REST of the
world's (7 BILLION people) expenditure on military--and that in a country
surrounded on two sides by vast oceans, and two sides by allies.
And yet we cannot induce our lawmakers to allocate even a tiny percentage
of this enormous amount we spend on military and use it for something
CONSTRUCTIVE rather than DESTRUCTIVE.

It is our human failing...and it will be our undoing. We will pass, like all other
species of animals on this planet, into extinction...I just hope we don't take
all the others with us.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

a reply to: onequestion

DAMNIT he is such an awesome person!!

He's actually like too good, lol. Makes me suspicious sometimes because I start thinking "can someone in the media actually, really think THIS similar to me?!?!?"

It's kinda sad actually when the most shocking thing, is someone speaking REAL LOGIC.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

It's scary that he's one of the only examples I can think of in the media that has a shred of logic.

This is really scary.

a reply to: onequestion

Well...he's an astrophysicist, he's not 'Mister' Tyson, he's 'Doctor' Tyson. He's not just some guy with a MA in Broadcast Journalism (Bill O'Reilly) or a BA in Public Policy (Rachel Maddow).

His first experience with college was Carl Sagan, that should give you an idea of why he's so willing to go on talk shows and talk about science.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: onequestion

Well...he's an astrophysicist, he's not 'Mister' Tyson, he's 'Doctor' Tyson. He's not just some guy with a MA in Broadcast Journalism (Bill O'Reilly) or a BA in Public Policy (Rachel Maddow).

His first experience with college was Carl Sagan, that should give you an idea of why he's so willing to go on talk shows and talk about science.

It's not a matter of science.

It's a simple matter of using your brain. 95% of people on TV seem incapable of RATIONAL THOUGHT...

That's the scary part. That it takes someone with an IQ of 160+ just to have a logical thought these days.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
It's not a matter of science.

I offer you this:

Science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which ones best match the facts. It urges on us a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. We need wide appreciation of this kind of thinking. It works. It’s an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. Our task is not just to train more scientists but also to deepen public understanding of science.

You can read the full essay by Carl Sagan in PDF form here.