Curiosity is at Mars and we are still sitting in our chairs

[khmorgan]

Originally Posted by t8burst

Sure man, you win. If we hadn't spent the 2B on the mars mission we would all be walking.

Sorry, but I must disagree. Nixon's War on Cancer is a good example. He allocated $10B to cure cancer in the early '70s. They did a lot of good work, but they didn't cure cancer.

Certainly, allocating some of the $2B spent on Curiosity would have helped SCI research a lot, but money doesn't cure disease, people do. More money would attract more good people -- as well as more hangers on.

Also, this country really needs more mathematicians and engineers than walking SCIs. I don't like it, but the US has lost its technical edge. We turn out more MBAs than engineers.

What I like about the Mars missions is that they are not spending many more billions trying to send people. They are solving problems by creating smart machines, not by sending people to solve them.

Frankly, I suspect if they had scraped the Mars mission and reallocated the money to medical research, SCI research wouldn't have seen a penny. Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. are far better organized.

If you want something at NASA to complain about, what about the International Space Station. That has a U.S. budget of about $2B / year.

Of course, for the Department of Defence, that is pocket money. So, why not look to the DoD for more SCI funding?

[t8burst]

Originally Posted by paolocipolla

Since you have worked for NASA, do you think that if NASA had the goal to cure SCI in 10 years would they be able to make it?

Paolo

P.S. please don't answer if you are in severe pain and/or if you are having a bad day, wait to feel good first

I am on vacation, so am nice and relaxed. No, NASA couldn't cure SCI even with its whole budget and 10 years. It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (I worked in the Aeronautics part). Basically planes and space, there are some medical resources for studying the effects of gravity (or the lack of it) on the human body but not extensive infrastructure for medical research. If the US government wanted to make it a national goal to cure SCI like it made landing on the moon NASA would not be the agency to do it.

The sad fact is Paolo is people really don't get excited about curing SCI, but do get excited about a robot SUV with lasers on Mars. Hell, people care more about saving dogs and cats than they do about us. Like Fiesty I would rather stop pouring money down the drain in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund things like SCI research that take it from stuff that NASA does that actually does do some good (even if that good is hard to quantify). I think I said it before, what we need someone like Brad Pitt to end up with SCI before we have a chance of getting the money we need to get serious about curing SCI. Until then we are just a fringe group that people would rather forget about.

[t8burst]

You need to check your sarcasm detector.

Originally Posted by khmorgan

Sorry, but I must disagree. Nixon's War on Cancer is a good example. He allocated $10B to cure cancer in the early '70s. They did a lot of good work, but they didn't cure cancer.

Certainly, allocating some of the $2B spent on Curiosity would have helped SCI research a lot, but money doesn't cure disease, people do. More money would attract more good people -- as well as more hangers on.

Also, this country really needs more mathematicians and engineers than walking SCIs. I don't like it, but the US has lost its technical edge. We turn out more MBAs than engineers.

What I like about the Mars missions is that they are not spending many more billions trying to send people. They are solving problems by creating smart machines, not by sending people to solve them.

Frankly, I suspect if they had scraped the Mars mission and reallocated the money to medical research, SCI research wouldn't have seen a penny. Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. are far better organized.

If you want something at NASA to complain about, what about the International Space Station. That has a U.S. budget of about $2B / year.

Of course, for the Department of Defence, that is pocket money. So, why not look to the DoD for more SCI funding?

[paolocipolla]

Originally Posted by t8burst

I am on vacation, so am nice and relaxed. No, NASA couldn't cure SCI even with its whole budget and 10 years. It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (I worked in the Aeronautics part). Basically planes and space, there are some medical resources for studying the effects of gravity (or the lack of it) on the human body but not extensive infrastructure for medical research. If the US government wanted to make it a national goal to cure SCI like it made landing on the moon NASA would not be the agency to do it.

The sad fact is Paolo is people really don't get excited about curing SCI, but do get excited about a robot SUV with lasers on Mars. Hell, people care more about saving dogs and cats than they do about us. Like Fiesty I would rather stop pouring money down the drain in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund things like SCI research that take it from stuff that NASA does that actually does do some good (even if that good is hard to quantify). I think I said it before, what we need someone like Brad Pitt to end up with SCI before we have a chance of getting the money we need to get serious about curing SCI. Until then we are just a fringe group that people would rather forget about.

Sorry T8, my question wasn't clear.

I know what NASA is about, but I don't know how closely you have been following SCI research... what I wanted to say was that if an org like NASA that was about curing deseases existed do you think we would see a cure in 10 years if this hypothetical org would set the goal of curing SCI?
I have the impression that NASA is much more efficent in delivering results then medical research, but that IMO it is more because of the way it is organized than because of budget reasons.

I agree about Afghanistan and Iraq, but I worry very much that if we just put more money in SCI research most of them would just go down the drain without delivering a cure or at least significan knowledge toward curing SCI.

Paolo

[t8burst]

Sorry, took you too literally. The answer to your question is I don't know. Landing on the moon or mars isn't "discovering" anything. It is an incredibly complex engineering problem but it is not like the equations used have changed since the newton postulated force = mass * acceleration (sorry we don't travel fast enough to need non-newtonian physics). I am not a biologist but my understanding is that we don't actually know how to cure SCI and all that is left is a lot of non-discovery, taking the cure and making it a "product". Therefore it is basically a different problem. 1000 scientists with 10B dollars might not find the cure but one brilliant doctor with a 500K grant might.

Don't get me wrong, I think our chances would be a lot better if there was a "SCIA" who mission was to cure SCI and had billions in funding. But it is not like a lunar mission or even landing a man on mars. We actually know how to put a person on mars, we just don't want to pay the price. So who knows if a concentrated organization is the key? They just spend a lot of money going down the wrong path. Like I said in my previous email, people just don't care. If they did that is our best bet, lots of money and lots of universities do the research which I think is a better path.

Originally Posted by paolocipolla

Sorry T8, my question wasn't clear.

I know what NASA is about, but I don't know how closely you have been following SCI research... what I wanted to say was that if an org like NASA that was about curing deseases existed do you think we would see a cure in 10 years if this hypothetical org would set the goal of curing SCI?
I have the impression that NASA is much more efficent in delivering results then medical research, but that IMO it is more because of the way it is organized than because of budget reasons.

I agree about Afghanistan and Iraq, but I worry very much that if we just put more money in SCI research most of them would just go down the drain without delivering a cure or at least significan knowledge toward curing SCI.

Paolo

[chris arnold]

Originally Posted by khmorgan

Sorry, but I must disagree. Nixon's War on Cancer is a good example. He allocated $10B to cure cancer in the early '70s. They did a lot of good work, but they didn't cure cancer.

Certainly, allocating some of the $2B spent on Curiosity would have helped SCI research a lot, but money doesn't cure disease, people do. More money would attract more good people -- as well as more hangers on.

Also, this country really needs more mathematicians and engineers than walking SCIs. I don't like it, but the US has lost its technical edge. We turn out more MBAs than engineers.

What I like about the Mars missions is that they are not spending many more billions trying to send people. They are solving problems by creating smart machines, not by sending people to solve them.

Frankly, I suspect if they had scraped the Mars mission and reallocated the money to medical research, SCI research wouldn't have seen a penny. Cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. are far better organized.

If you want something at NASA to complain about, what about the International Space Station. That has a U.S. budget of about $2B / year.

Of course, for the Department of Defence, that is pocket money. So, why not look to the DoD for more SCI funding?

Totally agree - excellent points.

[chris arnold]

Originally Posted by t8burst

...The sad fact is Paolo is people really don't get excited about curing SCI, but do get excited about a robot SUV with lasers on Mars. Hell, people care more about saving dogs and cats than they do about us. Like Fiesty I would rather stop pouring money down the drain in Afghanistan and Iraq to fund things like SCI research that take it from stuff that NASA does that actually does do some good (even if that good is hard to quantify). I think I said it before, what we need someone like Brad Pitt to end up with SCI before we have a chance of getting the money we need to get serious about curing SCI. Until then we are just a fringe group that people would rather forget about.

So true. (See underlined).
Not sure about Brad Pitt; wasn't Christopher Reeve a good enough celebrity. Then, in fairness, the thought alone, of actually curing SCI was radical back then.

[t8burst]

Originally Posted by chris arnold

So true. (See underlined).
Not sure about Brad Pitt; wasn't Christopher Reeve a good enough celebrity. Then, in fairness, the thought alone, of actually curing SCI was radical back then.

Since I am still sitting in a wheelchair and digging crap out of my ass with my finger (not at the same time) I would say no. We need Clooney or Pitt power celebrity.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by paolocipolla

Yes, good scienze is not the only factor.

Nasa has good scientists, a good organization, it is GOAL driven and has money too.
This way they went to the moon and now landed one more robot on mars etc.

Paolo

Remember the Apollo program was carried out by approx. 200 Universities. I thought you was against Multicenter studies.

[paolocipolla]

Originally Posted by Leif

Remember the Apollo program was carried out by approx. 200 Universities. I thought you was against Multicenter studies.

... but they were all goal driven by NASA...

Leif, have a glass of wine & relax.... just don't read my posts after the wine as you seem to do most of the times just to miss the most important concepts I write in my posts.

Paolo