Re: I Dream of Jeanne

From: Paul F. Dietz (dietz_at_dls.net)
Date: 10/14/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:28:57 -0500

Eric Chomko wrote:

> Well the definition of investment states that you must spend money in
> order to make money. I don't want the government investing per se. Do you
> want the government to be capitalistic like a business?

I want the government to not spend money on things that have insufficient
return of some kind. The manned space program has manifestly failed
to have sufficient return.

> : Look, the fact that money is wasted elsewhere in the budget doesn't
> : give every dollar sucking leach a free ride in my bank account, mister.
>
> No kidding. But you act like space exploration hasn't given us anything.

Manned space exploration, particularly with the shuttle, and even more
so the station, *hasn't* given us very much. So, yes, there's a reason
I'm acting like that's true -- it *is* true.

> Are you against space exploration or just the way NASA does it? I don't
> get you for one of the "if man was supposed to fly, then God would have
> given him wings" types.

I'm not against it in principle. However, I've seen no good evidence that
anyone else would have done it any better.

Let me turn this around: are you for space exploration regardless of its
effectiveness? What exactly would be sufficient to convince you that it
wasn't worthwhile? How high would the cost have to be?

> : The unmanned segment is delivering clear value, as indicated by customers
> : willing to pay for it (both in and out of government). I am refering to
> : military, weather, and commercial satellites here.
>
> Earth Science? Science in general?

If space and planetary science had to go up against other fields in the NSF,
instead of having been placed in a privledged position with their own
separate budget, it's not at all clear the scientific community would
have chosen to spend money there.

The government doesn't spend money on science just for the science, though.
Maintaining a cadre of scientists and engineers who can build (unmanned)
spacecraft is clearly militarily useful.

> : Why do you expect a Chinese manned space program to be any less of
> : a boondoggle than the US government's manned space program?
>
> Better goals, maybe? I think the notion of "endeavor" escapes you.

But what goals? No plausible ones have been promulgated (and, no, I don't
consider the latest reshuffling to cut it). That's NASA's big problem,
actually -- after Apollo they had no raison d'etre. All the
pathologies of the shuttle and station flow from that sad fact.

> : Observation that a certain negative outcome may occur is not evidence
> : that that outcome is desired, your slanderous and stupid accusation notwithstanding.
>
> I'm entitled to my opinion, despite what you think of it.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, even if they are utterly wrong,
slanderous, and stupid. I'm also free to hold you up to ridicule for them.

> : But, hey, continue to ignore reality, you're quite evidently very good at that.
>
> The only thing real is your irrational dislike of manned spaceflight.

Buddy, it's a *rational* dislike. I, rationally, don't like governments taking
my tax dollars and flushing them down the toilet. It's your attachment to it,
in the face of all evidence, that's irrational.

> There is always a risk when launching any rocket be it a shuttle or any
> other type.

Yes -- and the shuttle is one such risk away from being museumware. So don't feed
us this obvious bull*** about how we're going to fly it until there's a replacement.
There's an good chance that the program won't last that long.

        Paul

Quantcast