Posted on 02/02/2003 3:42:54 PM PST by Pokey78
You mean because I worked my tail off in school, applied, and worked my tail off in NASA and the DOD, I am a beneficiary like some welfare recipient?
We must stop reaching for the stars.
It seems he was serious. I guess that's what it's like to be without hope.
Yes and no. Yes, you are the beneficiary of the forced transfer of wealth if you are paid by or your work and equipment is funded by any government agency. Someone did not decide that
"Jeez, I wonder what a radio emissions map of the crab nebula looks like. (or whatever it is you do) I want to know so badly that I'm willing to donate however many millions of dollars that I worked hard for to buy the equipment, train the researchers and pay for their livlihood to find out."What happened is that the government plundered a large number of taxpayers at gunpoint, and the some group of bureaucrats were sitting around wondering what to do with all of the ill gotten wealth decided to let some of their cronies decide to dole it out via grants.
No in that you actually work. It's just that the work is not something that the free market demands very much of. If it weren't for the government putting a gun to the heads of taxpayers and then distributing the largess there wouldn't be much radio astronomy. How hard you worked, how smart you are (and I don't think you would be able to do what you do without being fairly smart) is irrelevant. You are not doing work driven by the free market. You are doing government work. (And if you're not, then you are the rare exception. You are well aware that most astronomy is paid for by governments)
It seems he was serious. I guess that's what it's like to be without hope.
It's really sad how many people think that because sci-fi writers can conceive of something it must be just around the corner. They can't discern the difference between sci-fi writers conceiving faster computers and they show up, or sci fi writers conceiving lasers and they show up, with sci-fi writers conceiving of transporters beams, inter stellar travel, and alien life. Lord of the Rings is far more realistic than the latter.
WHAT??? Are you implying that start trek is FICTION?
LOL. All but the classic series!
NB to Saganistas: Robots don't count.
Why? What's the point? We need to control our security from missles or attacks on our interests around the world.
NASA and the military can provide this. What we learn from this, will give us a shot at being able to do real space exploration in 2200.
You are reaching for Mars. Mars = no breathable atmosphere, rocks, more rocks, rust, more rocks. If you want rocks from an inhospitable place I suggest that you go to antartica and gather a few. At least you will be able to breath the air.
Note: from occupied ga doesn not want to go to Mars. That's okay. Space aboard the ship is limited.
It should have been the goal *after* developing and establishing a small, manned, lunar exploration base. This would seem just common sense.
Very True! I don't want to go to Antartica either. :-)
"To which a considered response might be: go paint it on the wall of your cave. "
How many valuable, brilliant people were killed in how many other varied ways? Some of you guys are just plain nuts, or entirely intellectually dishonest.
Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase or Louis and Clark?
The problem with manned space isn't intrinsic. It has been mired in bureaucracy and faced with severe congressional mismanagement. If you want to know why the space program languishes in irrelevency, look no further than your congressman. He hands billions to NASA, but offers no real oversight or interest in where that money is going. In fact, his main requirement of NASA is that it not attract attention, lest Dan Rather accuse him of squandering AIDS research money or stealing milk from babies.
FReegards!
C13
1) The things we learn from a lunar base will make it easier to explore further into the universe.
2) There may be many military advantages to having a manned outpost on the moon. Some of these may be known, some may not be known since technology hasn't gotten to that point yet. But when technology catches up, it would be wise to have a moon base to deploy it.
3) If we don't do it, the Red Chinese certainly will.
4) There may be raw elements located beneath the surface of the moon that could prove advantageous to whichever country owns them.
5) As trips to the moon base increase in frequency and therefore become cheaper, there will likely be commercial/private interests looking to pay for a trip to the moon.
Do you include the military? Are they a "beneficiary" since they also are on a government payroll?
What happened is that the government plundered a large number of taxpayers at gunpoint, and the some group of bureaucrats were sitting around wondering what to do with all of the ill gotten wealth decided to let some of their cronies decide to dole it out via grants.
How do you think we became this great nation? Part of it was pure research and exploration.
That is a good point. What is the value of the land encompassed by the Louisiana Purchase, compared the price we paid for? At least a thousand, if not more.
Just because *we* don't see immediate benefits to a permanent colony on the moon, it doesn't mean there won't be any in 50 or 100 years.
Anyway, I'd much rather have the moon belong to Americans rather than a bunch of communists in China, even if it is nothing more than a big rock that we can carve giant words into.
Whoever establishes a foothold there first will own the moon (unless we do and our politicians simply give it away, which is a real possibility).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.