Posted on 12/03/2003 3:12:08 PM PST by LandofLincoln
Let me guess, my fellow conservatives who seem to be on a slippery slope to the right will not consider this bigger government/bigger taxes. And I am somehow UNPATRIOTIC to even question this quest.
And even if all the credit for these developments can be claimed by the space program, my belief is that the cherries have all been picked from this tree and that we need a new tree.
Listen long enough to these wannabe, vicarious jockeys and you'll quickly find that science is not their aim--RIDES are. They wanna ride.
If we focused on robotics (and we can only "ride" to Mars if robots ride first), there might be more cherries to pick. Advances in robotics in just the past five-ten years just boggle the mind. But the infantile types start howlin if you suggest that it ought to be unmanned, even in the early attempts.
That's how you know that they don't give a buzz or a hoot about anything but a merry-go-round pony paid for by you and me.
As much as I would like to agree with you, I can't. In just about every other endeavor the gov't has tried, it has been eclipsed by the private sector, who can do it faster, better and cheaper. However, here's the crux.
Primarily, there is no money in going to the moon. What company is going to make money by going there now? The private sector excells when there is a market. Presently, there isn't a market for moon rocks or space travel; let alone enough to justify the expenses, R&D and prototyping required to do this.
If I were GW's advisor, I would strongly discourage talks of a trip to the moon. We did that nearly 30 years ago. It's a gross statement of underaccomplishment. I'd put it on par with declaring that we are going to McDonalds for dinner. It's more of an insult than a goal. However, if he were to say that we are going to put a man on Mars, or we are going to Europa, we are going to orbit Jupiter ..... THATS worthy of national pride.
"One of these days, Hillary, one of these days . . .
BANG! ZOOM! Straight to the moon!"
Resorting to that kind of comment means you just lost the debate here on FR.
This discussion has been good, and has made me rethink some of my own positions. I think that the government should get out of those aspects of the space program where they've successfully developed the techology and techniques, but where the long-term permanent exploitation of those techologies and techniques would be better done by the private sector. For example, NASA developed the means and ability to launch manned and unmanned craft into low earth orbit. Fine. That was appropriate for NASA to do. But is it still appropriate, 20+ years after the shuttle was first launched, to continue to run the program? I think there is a place for a robust federally-funded space program, but NASA should be spending it's money on pushing the envelope of space flight, technology, and exploration -- a mission Mars and the outer planets, new and revolutionary forms of spacecraft propulsion, and so forth. If, some day, the travel to Mars is "routine," NASA should get out of it, and move on to the next great challenge in spaceflight.
Rutan's project is simply a rich-man's version of the X-15, without the speed. It really doesn't break any new ground, other than to prove that through private means, we can achieve near-space, not quite outerspace. Rutan's spaceplane is cute, but it's almost 40 years behind what NASA and the military were able to achieve.
My reasons can be placed in three categories.
National Inspiration
It’s been a long time since the people I this country had a positive, non-war related national goal to strive for. A visible goal that will inspire people to achieve. How many kids grew up dreaming of being involved in the space program and turned that dream into action by getting educated and working in high technology fields. The more dreamers of that kind we have in this country, the better off we are.
What motivates kids now to get an education it high tech fields? Money? Nothing wrong with that, but most people want more. People want to be a part of something BIG. To be part of a group that accomplishes something incredible.
Tell me it wasn’t inspiring when Americans watched Neil Armstrong step on the moon for the first time. That single image probably inspired more kids to achieve great things that any other single event in our history. (Other than the wars, perhaps but that’s not the way we want to motivate them.) Our problem is that once we made it to the moon, we collectively waited for the next goal, and it never came. Our leaders attitudes seemed to be “We made it. We won the race. We’re done. Let’s get back to normal now.”
I firmly feel that humans need to push ourselves, as a race, to explore. To find new things and new frontiers. Yes, it sounds like a cheesy Star Trek line. But just because it’s been adopted by a TV series doesn’t negate its truth. What pushed Columbus across the Atlantic? Well, wind of course. But what motivated him to put a sail to the wind? Need? Greed? Yes I know he was looking for a water route to the Indies, but I’m talking about a need to explore and discover. So once he found “The New World” why did people keep going back? That same need. Sending robots to do the exploring is not the same thing. Kids don’t dream of becoming a robot when they grow up, they dream of being an ASTRONAUT. It’s the dreams they need to inspire and motivate them. Controlling a robot from a room in NASA is not the same.
Technological advances
No one is suggesting that none of the aforementioned products/technologies wouldn’t exist without them first being developed for the space program or that these things could only be developed through it. But you must concede that many certainly were developed much faster than they would have been, and in a few of the examples, perhaps polymers or some computer technology, they might not exist at all.
“Necessity is the mother of invention.”
Without the space program, a lot of these things would never have been needed, and therefore the alternate uses for them that other people came up with would not have come about. We simply don’t know what would be developed and then modified for commercial use, even life saving uses, by a truly motivated space exploration program.
Long Term Goals Private companies are run, necessarily, on a short-term basis. If an idea wont pay off in a relatively short time, it wont get done. There is no short-term payoff to space exploration. The long-term benefits are incalculable. We simply cannot see that far. I’m talking generations here. If you think the human race must push for the stars eventually, when will that be? Should we wait for the national debt to be paid off? Do we wait till there’s no more hungry people in the world? There will always be SOME reason not to do it. Always somewhere else to better spend that money. The amounts of money we’re talking about are miniscule compared to what we waste in one welfare program every year. When WILL it be the right time? When WILL we have not other pressing needs on Earth?
Competition
Nothing brings out the best in people that good old fashion competition. People want to be on the winning team. How will we feel as a nation when RED CHINA establishes a base on the moon? Collectively we’ll look at the moon and think, “Those miserable Stone Age punks are on the moon and we’re not?” In short, we will feel like we’ve LOST. Lost to a country that hasn’t managed to get indoor pluming to most of it’s population yet but managed to find the motivation to go to the Moon, and MAINTAIN a presence there. What will that do to our moral? Don’t think national moral exists? Think back to the Carter years. Then remember the change when Reagan came along. I remember it quite well. We were proud to be Americans again.
We need something big and difficult to strive for. This could do the trick.
Oops.
After reading my post again, that would be FOUR.
PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT this decade. We could put up billboards all over the country that count down, kind of like the Illinois Lottery does when the jackpot is going up. That would be a great sight EVERY FRICKIN morning while I drive to work. This country is on a path to BONING our children. Mine are 10 and 9.
You are being very liberal now. They do the same thing that your are doing ... once you hit them with a true statement that they cannot spin, THEY QUIT. I LOVE RONALD REAGAN. However, that is the truth, like it or not.
Okay, maybe I could have phrased it different.
"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to help pay down the national debt," just doesn't ring true with me.
Maybe if you want them to be accountants. Last time I checked though, accountants weren't helping pushing the technological envelope in to many areas in science.
Besides, I'm not all that concerned about the national debt. What realy matters is its size as a percentage of GDP. And in that light,we're no were near record levels.
So, I take it you are an astronaut!
"Mommy, when I grow up, I want to help pay down the national debt," just doesn't ring true with me.
How does this sound? Dad, if your generation did not piss away all that money, I wouldn't be in a 80% tax bracket.
Besides, I'm not all that concerned about the national debt. What realy matters is its size as a percentage of GDP. And in that light,we're no were near record levels.
This a great statement. What happens when GDP starts to grow at a slower rate than debt, or better yet GDP collapses. Your debt does not shrink as GDP shrinks.
You obviously are not an accountant either.
No, I'm not. What does that have to do with anything, other than trying to belittle me?
How does this sound? Dad, if your generation did not piss away all that money, I wouldn't be in a 80% tax bracket.
Where are you going with this? When did I try to turn this into a debate about the national debt or future tax rates?
This a great statement. What happens when GDP starts to grow at a slower rate than debt, or better yet GDP collapses. Your debt does not shrink as GDP shrinks.
So would you tell someone not to go into debt too by a house, cause they might loose their job? When did the GDP actually ever shrink?
And, just to rob you of another snide comment, no, I'm not an economist either.
You're obviously ignoring the entire intent of my posts. You're also starting to get rude. I'm talking about inspiring the next generation of engineers, scientists, and, yes, astronauts. You don't agree that that's a legitimate reason for a space program. That's fine. Don't get pissy about it, just say so by addressing the content, and the point of my posts.
That certainly is a valid point. However it only addresses one of the 4 areas in my post. Inspiring kids is not, by far, the only reason I feel we should have a aggressive space program, as I pointed out earlier.
The big question is really this:
Should the government be spending money on things that have a purely scientific benefit, with no KNOWN AND PREDICTABLE return either monetarily or in direct improvement the security the nation or to the improvement of peoples lives?
My answer is that I believe it won't get done otherwise.
Corporations expect to see, and rightfully so, a return on their investment in some time less that a generation or two. So they won't undertake huge programs like that.
At the same time, while we can't guarantee benefits resulting from a space program, we can look in to the past and see that there defiantly have been benefits in many areas, some quite dramatic. I'm not just talking about actual products as benefits. I'm also talking about things you can't touch, like national pride, and inspiration to the younger generations.
Really it's just as simple as that.
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.