Is your car a "gross emitter"?

[XH29N0G]

I have to admit that I spent the weekend test driving .  It is pretty close to where I want it, but I think I convinced myself I need to do some more test driving in the forseeable future....

[ws23rt]

I have to admit that I spent the weekend test driving .  It is pretty close to where I want it, but I think I convinced myself I need to do some more test driving in the forseeable future....

   You do look back to see if the atmosphere closes behind you?   I always do. Never did much care for those freeloading drafters.  I try to accelerate with care when a smart car is behind me   Geez-- bugs on the front and who knows what stuck on the back.

[JR]

The only thing putting holes in our o zone is rockets and Space ships. Ban them all.  
After all, we still know nothing about nothing after 50 years going into space. Let's not talk about the raping we get from Russia for a ride up to our Space Station.  
IMO, it's wasted Tax Payers Money.  Man is not meant for outer earth travel, Period.
Can I get a Amen. ?  

Absolutely not. To date, NASA has documented over 1,800 pieces of everyday technology that were a direct result of space exploration. Heres a short list of 20.

"To prove this point, every year since the mid-1970s, NASA has published a list of space technologies that have been integrated into everyday items. The tangible benefits span from life-saving medical devices to protective eyewear. To date, NASA has documented nearly 1,800 "spinoff" technologies. Here's a short list.

Artificial limbs
Baby formula
Cell-phone cameras
Computer mouse
Cordless tools
Ear thermometer
Firefighter gear
Freeze-dried food
Golf clubs
Long-distance communication
Invisible braces
MRI and CAT scans
Memory foam
Safer highways
Solar panels
Shoe insoles
Ski boots
Adjustable smoke detector
Water filters
UV-blocking sunglasses"

http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-items-developed-by-nasa-2012-8

Those inventions alone seem fairly worthwhile to me. That's just a sample of technology space exploration has brought us. There is no benefit to sticking our heads in the sand and stopping research and space travel.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, NASA's current tax funding amounts to one half of a penny for every dollar you pay in taxes. That's only 1/2 of one percent of every dollar the government takes in. I certainly think the organization that's driving the development of those lifesaving technologies is worth that much at least.

These things would come from living underwater in a module too.  

You never addressed the damage done to the O zone from rockets blasting into space.  IMO, we don't belong there.  I am not a tree hugger or anything, but do you know how much we have spent going into space and the amount the Russians charge us to go to our own space lab on their rocket.  

Well, let's look at those points.

Do rockets damage the Ozone:

Current global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer by no more than a few hundredths of 1 percent annually, said Toohey. But as the space industry grows and other ozone-depleting chemicals decline in the Earth's stratosphere, the issue of ozone depletion from rocket launches is expected to move to the forefront.

http://www.universetoday.com/28412/will-rocket-launches-deplete-the-ozone/

At the current rate of launches, no it doesn't. The damage is negligible. In the long term, as space travel becomes more commonplace, it could. I imagine we will repeat the emissions controls put in place on passenger cars in the 70s all over again. But for now, the data gained from space flight is absolutely worth the small impact.

On Russia "Raping" us on seats to space:

I know were paying 70 million or so per seat for 12 launches. (Which is 8 million more per seat than it used to be, but name me anything that hasnt gone up in price over the last decade.)
When we had our own ship each launch cost 1.6 billion. There isn't a cheaper way into space right now, until possibly the private companies come up with a solution before NASA has a replacement ship.

We absolutely could not have learned as much from working under the oceans.

This article has plenty of good reasons, I'll post the link rather than copy the whole thing here.
https://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/nine-good-reasons-for-space-exploration/

There was a time in history where people said

"Trains are dangerous and a waste of our money. Man wasn't meant to go that fast."

"Why would you want to leave Spain looking for new lands? You're wasting your time."

"If man was meant to fly, he'd have wings."

I'm fairly certain future generations will look upon the thinking of "man shouldn't go to space, he's not meant to be there" the same way.

Again, I want to say I'm not advocating anyone getting rid of their Charger for a Prius. I'm a huge car guy and spend my time building and racing them. But there's nothing wrong with appreciating the science behind this stuff.

[skip68]

Some good points Jr.     
I do have a hard time with believing new studies.   I don't even remember if coffee is good for you or bad anymore because it's been said several times it's back and forth.  Just like wine, chocolate, etc, etc.       

[XH29N0G]

JR - Thanks for the clarifying the now vs near future point on rocket traffic and ozone. 

I am fully on board with the argument that NASA and other basic research is important and plays a critical role for identifying new technologies and for training those that do.  I heard for instance, last fall from a division director (so probably valid) that the NSF support has supported more students in STEM than any other source.  NASA certainly does its part, but is mostly building rockets with a smaller basic science part.  NIH (which dwarfs them in terms of $$) must as well, but apparently in other areas - or my source was wrong.  Private sources are apparently small in comparison. 

Research almost necessarily has uncertainty - especially things like some medical research that deals with how organisms respond is uncertain because of their complexity.  It looks to me like the ozone arguments are pretty well established in comparison to knowing what is good for me (like driving the charger b/c I relax) or what is bad for me (driving the charger b/c ....).   

[Plum Crazy 68]

Lloyd3,
You should have convinced the lady in Colorado that you have a recycled car, and that you have saved the earth from needless usage of the energy it takes to make a new car and deliver that car to market. Over a forty plus year time span you have kept several new cars from being built.  You should have told her that the land disturbed to mine the metals for your car now have a forty plus year old forest growing, but her new car has caused scars on the earth and contributes more to global climate change than any old car with a rebuilt engine would ever contribute, and that the metal combinations from her batteries will pollute her children's future (hopefully she will choose not to have children in order to save the planet).

[Mike DC]

On Russia "Raping" us on seats to space:

I know were paying 70 million or so per seat for 12 launches. (Which is 8 million more per seat than it used to be, but name me anything that hasnt gone up in price over the last decade.)
When we had our own ship each launch cost 1.6 billion. There isn't a cheaper way into space right now, until possibly the private companies come up with a solution before NASA has a replacement ship.

Proportionally, I think $1 million bucks to the Federal govt is something like 1 cent to a person making $35,000/year.  

$1 billion dollars would be something like $10.


It cracks me up when a politician or talking head claims that a certain Federal expense measured in $ millions is making the govt broke.  They do it all the time, getting all furious & indignant about something that equates to a candy bar per year.  And of course it always happens to be something that their political party dislikes on principle.