Posted on 04/01/2005 5:12:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Much the same as W's was -- think about the Korean War...
I doubt Truman would have sent representatives globally to make sure it was OK with everyone that we defend ourselves.
Or sign a contract to lease the telescope to a corporation, foundation, or university. New technology on the drawing boards makes even ground based telescopes a viable hubble option.
Truman went into Korea under the UN banner. And yet Truman, like Bush, would have done what he did regardless.
Apples and oranges. The Koreans didn't fly airplanes into any of our skyscrapers. And just for the record, I think W has done a tremendous job given the political climate here and abroad.
It's not that simple. I'm an Ohioan and proud of the Wright Brothers, but it's not true that the private sector always outshines the public.
The private sector is not going to come up with enormous amounts of money to fund something without some kind of an expected return. Nobody in the private sector would have funded Apollo, the Shuttle, or the Hubble Space Telescope. The Manhatten Project is another example.
There's no way selling Hubble for $1 to anyone will result in repairs -- it's just too expensive, and for what?
There's more ... think mining rights, the ultimate place to dump toxic waste and colonies.
And great technological discoveries along the way.
Do you have a cost per ton figure for waste disposal in outer space? What price for minerals do you need to cover variable cost, much less the initial investment? And if colonization of the moon made any sense, why aren't there colonies on Antarctica? That's a much less hostile environment than space, and far cheaper.
If it were cheaper to send toxic waste into space, the launch vehicles would be leaving Earth daily. It isn't. It's a pipe dream.
It's going to happen.
Bump!
The reason there are no colonies on either are UN treaties. Nations are prohibited from having permanent colonies or from doing resource extraction on that continent.
Outer Space treaty prevents ANY private property claims offworld. Otherwise there would be a booming industry.
As far as price per ton of materials, give me 20 billion dollars in startup costs and I would be able to undercut EVERY mining operation on the planet for precious and semi precious metals for the next 50 years.
In the process I'd also give Earth a new moon and a nice close in base for cislunar and HEO operations.
Considering the fact that NO ONE has a solution for long term high level radioactive waste storage going, price is almost irrelevant.
But for 100 million dollars I could put 500 tons of high level nuclear waste into a solar orbit that would decay and drop it into the sun. Look up the SEA DRAGON booster.
Space is a permanent solution for a lot of problems.
Space mining is economically possible. The technology was mature enough 30 years ago and the business numbers add up. If anybody is actually interested enough to try to figure out how to do it rather than why to not do it, a discussion is possible.
That was explained in the President's Commission Report on Moon, Mars and Beyond. It is the Treaty.
I wholly disagree. If I could fly on the next Shuttle to service Hubble for future science knowing for a fact I would not get back, I would jump at the chance. Many a scientist gave his or her life in the pursuit of knowledge. I am going to die anyway. Dying to further mankind's knowledge of the universe is not a bad way to go in my book.
No. It is the small steps that put the infrastructure in place to make the larger leaps in the future.
Concur. People risk their lives in pursuit of MUCH less important and noble goals every single day.
But there's a more practical, if colder, reason why Hubble is worth a man's life--indeed, many men's lives. The entire Hubble program, including the cost of the attending Shuttle missions, is of order $10 billion. (The science was very well worth it; not many fields of study can be overhauled for that price.) Now consider: how many individual lives are worth $10 billion to save? There are a few individuals who might be worth that: Bill Gates, President Bush, etc. But the overwhelming majority of human lives are simply not worth $10 billion, or even $10 million to save, even in our wealthy society. (In some parts of the world, even $10 would be a steep price, I'm afraid.)
This is an interesting read:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-4/p10.html
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.