But let’s be clear here. That wasn’t the subject of my post. It was whether human space flight brings value to such research. One “change” I’d sure like to see is the human space flight community having a compelling answer to that kind of question. Is it about how humans can do this research, or how to most economically do the same research (thereby providing opportunities for other research). I guess one reasonable answer is that as long as these folks are going to be up there contributing to our understanding of microgravity and its effects on the human organism, they might as well be playing with salmonella. But that answer is a curious one to use as an example of the purpose of human space flight.

The probable impact of the results of these findings (“spin off”) on research down here at the bottom of the gravity well is why I think this is important. These findings point out several different avenues for scientists to investigate further (for instance NOTE the quote “…”No one had thought to look at…”.) Mechanical stress on organisms is one and then there is the affect of biofilms on organism behavior dynamics as examples.

Why does somone have to point these things out ? It should be obvious that the results of micrograv research feed back to one grav experiments. It is how science is done.

Sure, if you have an ISS/Spacehab, you might as well use it to do this work, and you might as well have the people on board doing it. But that hardly justifies either ISS or human space flight.

Showing your own ability to understand basic scientific research data would be appreciated here.

Thanks for displaying your inability to understand basic scientific research data.

*sheesh* just where DO these people come from ?

During the campaign, McCain tried to make 18 billion dollars a year in earmarks an issue. Unfortunatly with a 3.4 TRILLION dollar yearly budget McCain gained no traction arguing about 18 billion because as Obama said, it was so small it was almost meaningless in total budget terms.

The story died because America has come to realize when you are talking trillions in our 14 trillion dollar economy 18 billion is nothing.

manned space flight gets table scraps equalling what? 10 billion?

So your point is if ONLY President Elect Obama chopped 10 billion America would suddenly transform? It is ONLY that 10 billion that is keeping the Nation down?

Let us just agree to disagree.

You mean like this?

In and of itself, it implies no completion beyond “then we should be able to perform other expensive, deadline-constrained engineering feats which leave warm & fuzzy feelings, but no substantive consequences.”

As many others have pointed out, using it to argue “we should be able to [end poverty] [cure cancer] [come up with abundant cheap green energy] [your Good Thing here]” ignores crucial differences. Getting astronauts to the moon did not involve the challenges of competing interests and values, lack of necessary knowledge, etc. that those do.

FWIW, I share your judgment of the value of the “expansion of human experience.” Apollo made [some of] us feel for a while that humanity can do anything it set its mind to — a feeling that [some of] us also get at times from Michael Phelps, or the Divine Comedy, or a Union charge up Missionary Ridge, or a Congolese mother who keeps all her children alive. But in chilly truth, that tells us more about our feelings than about our capabilities.

Now, a post about Doug Cooke is not really the right place to start a discourse on this, but what it comes down to is

Is it neat and cool that the U.S. is ABLE to send people into space?

Most of us would say that it’s not only neat and cool, but has cultural value. Many of us were children of Apollo, and the phrase “If we can put a man on the Moon, then we should be able to …” is a stock phrase that has powerful meaning for us. So the “can do” spirit that came out of that accomplishment lives on with us today.

The MIT Space, Policy, and Society group just released a briefing paper to the Obama administration (web.mit.edu/mitsps — Jeff, you might want to start a thread on this one), coming up with the line that human space exploration is about the “expansion of human experience”. So is such expansion an important thing? Maybe yes. I think so. That pertains to the “can do” reward. And maybe that expansion drives technology achievement in ways that other national goals don’t. But if so, those are the arguments that have to be more clearly made to an increasingly skeptical public. No, it’s not about bringing the solar system into our economic sphere (and doing it before the Chinese!) While that might well be important, and I guess would justify space exploration in general, it’s not a goal that clearly requires putting humans in space.

This is an old argument, about whether sending people into space should be a luxury only for a country that has all of its earthly problems solved. but this isn’t a bad time to refresh it, now that “change” is afoot.

Maybe you should try and know something about an issue before you shoot your mouth off & display such pride in your cultivated ignorance.

What do you suppose this research is worth ?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-12/asu-tmi121208.php

Smarter trolls please !