Replies

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of breath on hurling personal invectives rather than considering the notion that perhaps such a costly venture capitalized by public funds should be carefully weighed as to tangible benefits versus capital outlay, especially in light of the magnitude of the outstanding federal debt already accumulated to date. Is that too much to ask? We got four billion more years on the bulb. Surely there's plenty of time to put a Blockbuster Video on IO without rushing hastily into something that sounds cool, but hasn't been debated and analysed to the degree that its price tag warrents.

We carried a huge debt my entire life, it was one of those things that was almost like a force of nature, no one imagined it would ever be beaten.

Then in a few years of expanding economy, suddenly it was (statistically at least) gone.

In the wake of a recession and a war that is part of the cause of the recession, its back. But it owes more to the recession than to specific levels of spending. We couldn't balance the budget by cutting it because no one could ever agree what to cut... and then suddenly it was balanced by an expanding economy and tax base.

If 50 years of deficits can be set aright with a couple of good quarters, our present situation will be solved similarly. Its good to remember that we didn't really balance the budget, but we had a Dem in power, and the press gave him the benefit of the doubt. As soon as the economy turns around, and a Dem is back in office, the press will inform us we have balanced the budget again.

Its not really an either-or thing. For the price of a couple of months in Baghdad we can have a probe cutting core samples on our favorite planets, and still fund your favorite boondoggle back here on earth. A hundred years from now, no one will remember your boondoggle, and everyone will remember mine.

personal invectives

Huh? Where? I never once called anyone on this thread uneducated, a fool, unimaginative, or a plethora of other terms I was thinking. And I only used the term, "Little Earthers" just once. I've been very polite in the face of extreme shortsightedness.

perhaps such a costly venture capitalized by public funds should be carefully weighed as to tangible benefits versus capital outlay, especially in light of the magnitude of the outstanding federal debt already accumulated to date. Is that too much to ask?

OK, consider this - will you be proud that your granddaughters and grandsons graduated from Beijing University? Because that's the only place they will get a quality education in the future without continued R&D (including space exploration) in the United States. We have thrown gazillions of dollars at "the poor", we have dumbed-down our educational system so little Johnny doesn't feel bad that he can't pass basic math...and as a result, we have raised a crop of individuals who cannot reason and simply want to sit in front of the TV with their microwave popocorn.

You are questioning the relative merits of research which can propel the US far into the future versus sitting on our arses accepting the status quo. I hardly think anyone really has to spend much time considering this issue.

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of breath on hurling personal invectives rather than considering the notion that perhaps such a costly venture capitalized by public funds should be carefully weighed as to tangible benefits versus capital outlay, especially in light of the magnitude of the outstanding federal debt already accumulated to date. Is that too much to ask? We got four billion more years on the bulb. Surely there's plenty of time to put a Blockbuster Video on IO without rushing hastily into something that sounds cool, but hasn't been debated and analysed to the degree that its price tag warrents.

I think I get your drift. If you cannot PROVE an immediate monetary benefit, then it should be abandoned. My guess is you are glad the SSC was canceled as well. Yup, lets go ahead and continue to put our money where it will do some real good. How about some more housing projects. Oh wait I got it! Free medical to illegals!

Without basic research and science ventures we may as well hang it up. I personally know people with degrees in physics and engineering who cannot find a job in thier field. "Fries with that" anyone?

The technology drain is a problem, and I won't solve that in this discussion. (As if I could solve it in any other...)

But it is important to remember how technology transforms an economy. I'm probably speaking to the choir here, but no matter... You can never eliminate poverty because poverty is relative. You will always have some people who for various reasons are less able to integrate or engage economically than others.

But just as a rising tide lifts even little leaky boats, technology redefines everything. In some countries poverty means building your shelter out of materials you scrounge yourself, and dying of diarrhea.

In the US, poverty means you have a $5 digital watch that is better than any watch a Lord of London could have bought with all his fortune a short time ago, you have a color television, homeless people are stinking up the public library while they surf the internet, and you will get better medical treatment than any titan of industry of a generation ago, and all you have to do is wait your turn at ER while they tend to the gunshot wounds first.

The technology that spun off from the earlier moonshots entered the economy in various ways; computer companies developed technologies for the program that were later marketed to the general public. Engineers that get dumped onto the economy during some NASA budget crunch go to work for mainstream companies and bring specialized knowledge with them, or start their own little companies doing whatever. The technologies seep out into the general economy and there are shifts that change everything even though hardly anyone notices.