collectSPACE: Messages - Reply to Topic

Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

Forum:	Free Space
Topic:	Red Bull Stratos: Felix Baumgartner's skydive

Want to register?

Who Can Post?	Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration	You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Your UserName:
Your Password:	Forget your password?
Your Reply: HTML is ON UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend	[QUOTE]Originally posted by YankeeClipper: [B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: [b]That doesn't mean NASCAR is a scientific activity.[/b][/QUOTE]Robert, you and Meg Urry seem keen to draw a distinction between pure and applied science. NASCAR is the epitome of applied science (the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment). A lot of the world's leading experts in automotive science work within NASCAR, IndyCar, FIA Formula 1, and WRC. Don't take my word for it - let's ask both NASCAR and the National Science Foundation: NASCAR [URL=http://www.nascar.com/news/110420/inside-nascar-science-draft/index.html]Inside NASCAR - The Science Of The Tandem Draft[/URL] Particular highlights were the insistence that Newtonian Mechanics are behind every decision engineers make in NASCAR, and the section on wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics models and their fallibility (Meg Urry take note!). NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION [URL=http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/sos/]US NSF - The Science Of Speed[/URL] <BLOCKQUOTE>[i]"You can't win NASCAR races without getting the science right. NASCAR teams push science to its limits to eke out the tenths or hundredths of a second that separate the winner from the also-rans. This video series uses the elements of NASCAR to show that a racecar really is a science experiment on wheels."[/i]</BLOCKQUOTE>So why is it that universities are issuing degrees in sport science, human performance science etc.? Why is it that so much sport seems to be more about science than anything with the use of hypoxic training in tents and at altitude, nutrition, material science, gait analysis, biomarker analysis, biosensors, biomechanics etc. What is sport actually about? Beating your opponent? Winning? Setting records? Survival in extreme sports? Sport is a substitute for warfare (the origins of the Olympic Games lie in military disciplines). Warfare is not about winning - it is about surviving and being less incapacitated than your enemy. There are no winners on a battlefield, just survivors. No one is setting records. It is first and foremost a test of survival. Formula 1 and NASCAR drivers used to get killed in high numbers until advances in science intervened to enable drivers to push limits and still survive. The forces of nature and laws of physics don't care one iota about human records. Gene Kranz said it best on [i]NASA's Greatest Missions[/i]: <BLOCKQUOTE>[i]"Space is basically a test of survival - our ability to invent things that will allow us to use very limited resources."[/i]</BLOCKQUOTE>Baumgartner's flight was fundamentally a test of survival and, therefore, a test of the science that enabled him to survive and will enable others to survive. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: [b]Felix Baumgartner jumped out of a balloon-lofted gondola to break records ... the primary goal was to break records.[/b][/QUOTE]The primary goal was to [b]survive[/b] supersonic flight from 120,000ft. Human records were very much secondary to that primary mission objective. The flight was pioneering aerospace exploration, pushing an experimental flight envelope and applied science to its limits. It shouldn't be degraded by Meg Urry with dismissive descriptions like [i]"human cannonball descent"[/i] equating it to a mere circus stunt and positioning it as something that has no [i]"higher purpose"[/i] and impedes [i]"genuine progress in science and engineering"[/i]. As if pure science is somehow more real or important or noble than applied science. Gene Kranz also said in [i]NASA's Greatest Missions[/i]: <BLOCKQUOTE>[i]"The power of space was to raise our aspirations to those things that are possible if we will commit."[/i]</BLOCKQUOTE>Felix Baumgartner's flight did that, Meg Urry's article most definitely did not. (At this point I see no benefit of having an endless circular debate so we'll agree on some points and disagree on others)[/B][/QUOTE]
Options	Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

<A HREF="http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/004132.html" target=_blank> *** Click here to review this topic. ***</A>

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.47a