Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:06:05 -0700
Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:On 13 Jan, 21:47, nebu...@xxxxxxxxx (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
:> Michael Gallagher <mikejo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
:> >Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
:> >ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
:> >spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? Is there
:> >something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
:> >from "mother Earth"? Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
:> >What?
:>
:> Assume that a Mission To Mars works right. I'll even give you
:> it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
:> even though those traits have not been among those that past major
:> space projects have been renowned for. How many people benefit, and
:> how much do they benefit? How soon do these benefits arrive? Do these
:> benefits outweigh the costs? What of these benefits could be achieved
:> with a lesser expense? How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
:> these benefits?
:
:Yes, but if you do "public works" people will get employed whatever
:you do. You opnly get Keynsian benefits if what you have gone into
:debt for earns you money.
:
Wrong.
:
:A manned expedition to Mars is unlikely to
:earn any money.
:
Perhaps not directly, but there will be spin offs.
:
:The sort of project you want from the stand-point of Keynes is a big
:construction project. Like the Hoover dam.
:
Keynes doesn't care what government spends the money on. You
obviously fail to understand basic economics, as you fail to
understand SO many things.
<snip A.S.S. meandering>
:
:You have to use the resources of space, you have to mine robotically.
:
Why? We don't have to mine robotically here on Earth. Why do you
think space is different?
:
:You simply cannot afford to send astronauts to the Asteroid belt, or
:at least not in significant numbers.
:
Then you simply cannot afford to develop robotic mining ships and send
them to the asteroid belt in significant numbers, either.
:
:If you are going to get benefits
:from space they will be technological benefits.
:
Why? Sudbury, Canada, already gets huge benefits from the use of
space resources.
:
:What benefits would be
:be looking for? Benefits in robotics would be high on the list.
:
Only if we follow your circular logic.
:
:In
:point of fact a lot of work is being done with no space applications
:in mind.
:
:People in the group seem to want to persuade us that there are no
:benefits in that direction. One might ask, what benefits are there in
:any direction.
:
:On the Apollo project a minicomputer was used when Apollo was on the
:dark side of the Moon. This did give a stimulus to minicomputer
:development. As I said everyone seems to be trying to persuade us that
:no benefits of that kind would accrue.
:
Yet you gibber on about how manned space flight will provide no
benefits.
Hint: You're not supposed to start with your conclusion and then
reason backward....
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- References:
- Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Michael Gallagher
- Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Joseph Nebus
- Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- From: Ian Parker
- Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- Prev by Date: Re: "The Future of Human Spaceflight"
- Next by Date: Re: "The Future of Human Spaceflight"
- Previous by thread: Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- Next by thread: Re: Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading