Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?

From: Jeff Schroeder (_jefreyschroder_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:03:53 GMT

Yes, I am feeding off of the public trough. This isn't automatically a bad
thing. The utopian idea of everyone keeping all the fruits of their labors
and living as unfettered individuals with no resposibility to anyone but
themselves will not support an advancing society. There are many things that
require collective effort and some form of organization. Fire departments,
medical services, a good defence, and many technologies would not exist, or
be far less than they are without some form of planning and support from the
citizens (taxes). Life is darwinian, like it or not, and collective action,
even if not supported by all, is a proven survival strategy.

Another project that I've worked on for many years is the Near Earth
Asteroid Tracking program (I design and build the CCd cameras). It is
taxpayer supported and may show no direct benefit to all of those gentleman
farmers trying to keep the guvmint out of their lives. But it just might
provide a warning that could save all of us from a proven threat to life on
this planet. You might think not. I think it is, and you as well as I will
benefit.

Jeff Schroeder

Saving the Earth one rock at a time!
(further comments below)

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:TerHc.7857$sD4.2331@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
> > I'd like to address the idea that money spent on space exploration (or
many
> > other govt. programs) is wasted or lost.
> >
> > First a disclaimer: I worked on the Cassini attitude control electronics
for
> > six+ years and was holding my breath along with a lot of others during
orbit
> > insertion.
> >
> > I've been at JPL for over twenty years, and AFAIK we have never stuffed
a
> > nosecone full of bricks of 20 $ bills and launched them into space! The
> > funds spent on programs like this circulates in the economy right here
on
> > earth. For my part, it has gone for rent, food, car repairs, and the
myriad
> > other expenses a life requires. The amount spent on materials and
services
> > has benefited many businesses, thereby providing jobs to others so they
can
> > purchase additional goods and services. The actual value of the
materials
> > launched away from the Earth is a trivial amount of the total.
>
> Are you missing the point, Jeff? It isn't just the cost of the
> nosecone; it's the costs involved in getting that nosecone off the
> planet - including your salary, which was likely paid for by the
taxpayers.
>
>>>>No. I was including all of the costs in my argument. I was using the
example of the worth of the materials just to show that the lion's share of
the mission costs stayed right here.

> > This can be said about nearly all of the things the government uses
public
> > funds for. I agree that many programs are unnecessary or even counter
> > productive, that there is great waste and fraud, and that there are even
> > deliberate inefficincies built into them. The basic aim is to keep a
high
> > enough percentage of the population employed (usefully or not) to enable
our
> > society to function. The continued circulation of wealth is as important
to
> > it, as that of your blood is to you. The only money that is truly going
to
> > waste, is that not being used. The bucks stuffed in your mattress for
> > example, are only a potential benefit to you or others until it is used.
>
> Really? So the government's taking money away from taxpayers at the
> point of a gun and giving it to others is somehow a good thing? The
> government knows better than the taxpayer that the taxpayer's money
> shouldn't be spent on clothes for the kids, a replacement for that
> clunker of a car, or college for the kids? Or even the taxpayer's
> retirement, since that $1,000/per month average Social Security check
> will pay for the taxpayer's retirement and the taxpayer doesn't need
> anything else?
>
>>>>I pay my taxes willingly. No one has pointed a gun at me AFAIK. I don't
like some of the things they are used for, I grumble at the forms, the waste
and inefficincies can be appalling, but overall, I see the benefit in living
in a society made possible by them. One of the great things about our
society is that you can complain, try to change it, or leave if you wish.
There are a lot of places where those aren't options. We are a long way from
perfection, but are the best available.

> Redistribution of wealth was always, and still is, an idea from
> socialism that never worked. Go see what happened to the Soviet Union
> for an example of this.
> >
>>>>Fine. We aren't the Soviet Union. A lot of our taxes are used for other
things than redistribution of wealth. Those programs that are are often not
successful or even counter productive. (welfare, progressive tax rates,
etc.)

> > However, the main point that many of us have been debating is this. Are
> > there better things to spend an amount of money on than space
exploration. I
> > agree that there are many worthwhile things that would provide more
> > immediate benefit to people than our present example, Cassini. There
are
> > also a lot more very expensive things that provide less benefit, but are
> > still funded. Examples: Bogus research grants to support a
predetermined
> > political viewpoint. Vastly expensive military systems that are never
used,
> > or are just impractical. Highways to nowhere, and all other forms of
that
> > lovely, inclusive word, PORK! Now many would consider Cassini to be a
very
> > juicy bit of pork to be trimmed. Here, I disagree. Cassini, and other
forms
> > of scientific exploration DO provide a benefit in increased knowlege
about
> > the universe we live in. Any direct benefit to people from that may not
be
> > apparent for some time. As Ben Franklin said when questioned about the
worth
> > of his experiments with electricity, "of what use is a newborn babe?"
It
> > seemed silly to people of the time, but is crucial to our world today.
We
> > can't predict where science will lead us, or what information might turn
out
> > to be useful. Also, technologies developed for "useless" things like
Cassini
> > are already being applied in other ways. The mapping spectrometer has
been
> > further developed for medical imaging here on earth for example. The
> > benefits are not just from the science data returned.
>
> I agree that pure research is a necessity; much good can come from it.
> Unfortunately, the government does little with it, and has an annoying
> habit of putting too much of it under an umbrella of secrecy that belies
> the altruistic motives of research for research's sake.
> >
> > There are many things that should be complained about, trimmed, or
> > cancelled, before going after things that are benefitting mankind
through
> > inspiration, knowlege returned, technologies developed, and pride in
doing
> > something difficult, or to the naysayers, impossible!
>
> Lovely idea. Just as soon as you stop feeding at the public trough, get
> back to us.

> >>I pay for my meals! :-)

> > Jeff Schroeder
> >