By: pavehawk87

pavehawk87 — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:18 +0000

Look at the critics of the early space program. They all said much of what you are saying now. If we would have heeded their cries then, we would not have what we do now. What you are arguing for is essentially to let technology stagnate.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:20:42 +0000

Contrary to the arguments of NASA’s nerd supporters, NASA’s goals are irrational and hard-to-measure. For instance, technological innovation would be better served by direct funding of basic research, something that has been cut, as an inflation-adjusted percentage of federal science funding, almost without pause since the 60′s. At least that seems true; do any of you know better?
Again, “space dominance,” now official U.S. policy, is a Bush-approved plan to have full-spectrum dominance in any future space conflict. That we’re fifty years from any realistic scenario of actual space combat is beside the point to these people. There might, someday, be a Chinese space station, and we better have a better space station. Continued U.S. Dominance of space is neccesary so we can maintain our huge lead in growing zero-G soybeans.
The possible benefits of space travel are not obvious, despite the claims of those who use space travel to assuage their existential concerns. But the eventual exploration of space is a positive goal, for the loftiest and most irrational of reasons.
Ironically, cutting NASA funding might keep the Pentagon out of space for the foreseeable future, which would be a very good thing for those who hope that space can be the object of noble, disinterested exploration, rather than a tragi-comic repetition of our earth-bound nationalism and greed.

By: jimmarquis

jimmarquis — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:06:36 +0000

Another thing to think about…if these hurricanes get much stronger we may need to relocate about half the US population. Mars seems to be pretty empty…

Comments on: Me vs. the “Space Program”

By: pavehawk87

By: Joe

By: jimmarquis