Probes are easier and require much less space than sending people to planets. I'd rather see near time use of NASA's budget spent on probes to planets/asteroids than trying to get someone there.

The whole point of this report is that Obama wants to scrap all space exploration, manned or robotic. I guess he thinks we have learned everything there is to learn about space.

Dude! Palin has an IQ of 125. Obama has an IQ of 128. (It's been all over the web the last 3 years.) Of course they've learned all they can about space!
(Oh. Wait. 125 and 128 just barely go above the average range. OOPS!)

Nah, 125 and 128 (if they were accurate numbers and I don't have any clue that they are), would be way above normal. The thing is, the collective IQ of the US has seemingly dropped a good 10 or more points in the past 20 years. I call it the double digit national IQ. And, when it comes to electioneering IQ -- drop another 10 points.

(Oh. Wait. 125 and 128 just barely go above the average range. OOPS!)

---

Average (Median?) on the Stanford-Binet scale 1s 100. Most of us would find people at this level extremely dull. !28 is not too bad but far from near genius.

I score around 150 but then I still can't find my keys in the morning.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Average (Median?) on the Stanford-Binet scale 1s 100. Most of us would find people at this level extremely dull. !28 is not too bad but far from near genius.

Too bad that of my recent posts, this is the one people have seized on.
But, since you choose to, Barry, William is closer to correct.
As IQ scores, as with many standardized tests, is nearly Normally distributed, William, it is mu that is referred to here.
Now, in my earlier days, it was stated the standard deviation, sigma, was 20. Now I see some texts claiming it is 15.
The bit about Obama and Palin's IQs is merely what some ads claim to try to get you to follow their link at take their test (and perhaps get some spyware and malware dumped on you). I hoped people would realize I was joking when citing it.
However, with sigma = 20, roughly 68% of people are in the 80 to 120 range; roughly 95% in the 40 to 140 range; roughly 99.7% in the 40 to 160 range.
Focusing on the upper end: 34% in the 100 to 120 range; 13.5% in the 120 to 140 range; 2.35% in the 140 to 160 range. That leaves 0.15% in the range above 160.
If youo accept the sigma = 15 instead, use the same percentage but say the 100 to 115, 115 to 130, 130 to 145, and above 145 ranges.
Now,how do they define "genius"? I'll bet that varies, too. But I'm sure if you're not more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, you don't meet the condition, no matter what.
By probabilities, I would not be at all surprised if Obama's and Palin's IQs are as stated, but I am sure that's not part of what they are legally required to disclose, lol.

Yup, I know the deal with IQ tests -- been there, done that as a smart ass kid. Now, I'm a smart ass old fart.

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Oh, and I've seen those malware ads.

I figure if Palin and Obama are that close, it demonstrates what drive and motivation can do for some and what the lack of it does for others....

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Nah, just 20 years ago you were likely in the smart kids class and didn't rub elbows with the average ones.

---

As opposed to the Texas politicians who NEVER use funding for other purposes. Cool, glad to know <giggle>. LBJ is now turning over, let alone the chuckles that Rove is getting out of this.

Find a clean politician -- go ahead, make my day.

LBJ Ballot box 13.

A Texas politician will arrange it; A Chicago Politician will buy it; A Florida Politician will nepotism it.

---

Getting back to whether Obama is going to close NASA even though I believe he would like to I doubt that he can without a lot of help from somewhere. California, Texas and Florida have a lot to lose if NASA and all it's programs were closed down and those three states have a large impact on how National elections turn out. Also their members of congress from both parties heavily support the space program. NASA may not initiate any new space missions over the next few years but it is very doubtful that it will close it's doors. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Getting back to whether Obama is going to close NASA even though I believe he would like to I doubt that he can without a lot of help from somewhere. California, Texas and Florida have a lot to lose if NASA and all it's programs were closed down and those three states have a large impact on how National elections turn out. Also their members of congress from both parties heavily support the space program. NASA may not initiate any new space missions over the next few years but it is very doubtful that it will close it's doors. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

Still telling ya, with the previous suggesting we go back to the Moon first, before Mars, NASA was in trouble.
And it's funny, the self-contradiction: why do you not support the private industrialization of space travel/exploration?

Could be -- though for me it would have more like 40 years ago or more. I do remember being in the 'untracked' Junior English class in high school due to a schedule conflict. Fortunately there were two other 'lost souls' in that class so we got to conspire a certain amount.

But if the scores are normalized to get to 100, I still get the sense that the '100' is somehow less than it was 20 years ago.

Nah, just 20 years ago you were likely in the smart kids class and didn't rub elbows with the average ones.

When Obama went down to Florida to talk about some of the reductions at Canaveral he talked about public/private partnerships. He was 'flash mobbed' by irate Tea Party partisans about making the cuts. I too found that a bit 'interesting'. Sort of like the 'keep your government hands off of my Medicare' signs that seemed just a bit too obvious.

And it's funny, the self-contradiction: why do you not support the private industrialization of space travel/exploration?

Since we are too poor to fund space endeavors and too broke, too politically correct and beat up to pursue wars we will find out that technological development may be slowed or the next new technology may not be forthcoming at all.

Since we are too poor to fund space endeavors and too broke, too politically correct and beat up to pursue wars we will find out that technological development may be slowed or the next new technology may not be forthcoming at all.

Mankind is on a crossroad. Technologic revolution that has started during the industrial revolution is coming to an end. Mankind needs new forms of energy to feed their hunger for energy and knowledge. Today research is fundamental for mankind to be able to give another lap forward; money will not be an issue if politicians understand the turning point where we stand, instead of thinking only at 4-5 years at the time. Now vision is needed.

If America and Europe don’t want to lose their position of leaders in terms of research then now is the time to increase the funds on research, not to cut like Obama is doing with NASA.

To let NASA fall is a mistake that will have a great cost in future generations not only of Americans but also in Europe.

Sometimes I wish that the Iron curtain would still exist as it seems that America and Europe are not capable to be leaders in a world where there is any competition anymore.

Big corporations will only fund the research that think that will bring any profits on the short and medium term, and certain fields are not interesting for the corporations like the investigation of space.

However they forget one thing, from Space and military research came a lot of patents a lot of inventions that today we are using in our current lives.

Sometimes I wish that the Iron curtain would still exist as it seems that America and Europe are not capable to be leaders in a world where there is any competition anymore.

Big corporations will only fund the research that think that will bring any profits on the short and medium term, and certain fields are not interesting for the corporations like the investigation of space.

However they forget one thing, from Space and military research came a lot of patents a lot of inventions that today we are using in our current lives.

Necessity (real or perceived) is the mother of all invention.

---

Since we are too poor to fund space endeavors and too broke, too politically correct and beat up to pursue wars we will find out that technological development may be slowed or the next new technology may not be forthcoming at all.

Same question to you, William, as to Bob DeWoody. Why do you want a government program for this, and not put a lot, or any, support behind the private sector industry leading us further into space? (Which, if it happens, could just as well spur the technological developments you so rightly refer to.)
and if I am understanding you and Bob correctly, again I ask, do you not see the contradictory stance you are taking, compared to just about anything else either of you have posted in the Politics forum. If you see it as otherwise, please explain what I'm missing.
'Til then, "Woo hoo, gooo ANSARI!"

Actually, I see at least one area of technological development -- spawned by the ongoing wars (not withstanding your view that over the past 10 years we've not pursued wars) -- unmanned aircraft -- for observation, command and control, and killer strikes. Remote wars -- kill them, not us.

Since we are too poor to fund space endeavors and too broke, too politically correct and beat up to pursue wars we will find out that technological development may be slowed or the next new technology may not be forthcoming at all.

Why Nasa's Fire Sale Is Good News for Florida

Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Getting back to whether Obama is going to close NASA even though I believe he would like to I doubt that he can without a lot of help from somewhere. California, Texas and Florida have a lot to lose if NASA and all it's programs were closed down and those three states have a large impact on how National elections turn out. Also their members of congress from both parties heavily support the space program. NASA may not initiate any new space missions over the next few years but it is very doubtful that it will close it's doors. Move along, these aren't the droids you are looking for.

Still telling ya, with the previous suggesting we go back to the Moon first, before Mars, NASA was in trouble.
And it's funny, the self-contradiction: why do you not support the private industrialization of space travel/exploration?

I don't see any contridictions in my point of view. I'm just pointing out that all the hardware is already being built by private firms.

As far as going back to the moon to establish a working base to explore the rest of the solar system I think in the end it will prove to be the only way further manned exploration will happen. The moon is now known to have all the raw materials needed to build and fuel future deep space vehicles.

But going anywhere on private money won't happen unless or until there is a way to gain a profit. So you tell me how a totally privately funded space mission is going to turn a profit.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

OK -- I thought you (or someone else) was pointing out the tech payoffs from previous government funded endeavors. So the expectation of having government funded further manned missions (with the tech payoffs going to private companies it seems -- as it has in the past), sounds a bit like an 'astro industry' entitlement -- and we know have folks rage against entitlements.

I agree with you about 'moon first' approaches. The quick fix would be low orbit and storage there for a flight to Mars -- but the long 'we are here to stay' approach would entail some permanent moon base.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see both a return to the moon and a mars endeavor. It does seem to me though that in the context of poorly provided health care to 20% of the population -- and seemingly massive resistance to resolving this -- there seems to be a bit of 'no for this, then no for that' action going on.

I guess I'm thinking that if we figured out a way to reduce the 18% of GDP for health care in this country (compared to something like 10% in most other developed countries with better health care access), to say even 15% (and decent access), then even 1/3 of that going to space exploration would be just dandy.

I don't see any contridictions in my point of view. I'm just pointing out that all the hardware is already being built by private firms.

As far as going back to the moon to establish a working base to explore the rest of the solar system I think in the end it will prove to be the only way further manned exploration will happen. The moon is now known to have all the raw materials needed to build and fuel future deep space vehicles.

But going anywhere on private money won't happen unless or until there is a way to gain a profit. So you tell me how a totally privately funded space mission is going to turn a profit.