Posted on 01/12/2004 6:14:28 AM PST by Theodore R.
Mars Looks Like Nevada
I wish I could share the excitement the scientists obviously feel about the pictures from Mars, but they just look like Nevada to me. If they ever get air conditioning on Mars, maybe somebody will open a casino there.
Actually, it's a great technical accomplishment, but the key question is, of what benefit is it to people on Earth? Perhaps we have gone from art for art's sake to science for science's sake and there are no public benefits at all.
I don't believe in public subsidies for artists, and I don't believe in public subsidies for interplanetary geology or spaceflight as a hobby. Of course, I don't believe in public subsidies for professional sports, either, which more or less puts me outside the mainstream.
Still, we have not reached the point where we can confidently say that no child in America is hungry or malnourished, that all children receive a fine education, have plenty of opportunities for jobs when they grow up and will not end up in a human dump if they get sick or injured. We have certainly not reached the point where we can say that we are properly conserving the resources of our own planet. Until that day is reached, every public dollar spent must answer these questions: What are the benefits, and who receives them?
If you look at the state of government finances, from the federal to the local levels, you can easily understand we're not talking about "surplus" funds here. There are no surplus funds anywhere. Even a large flock of crows couldn't drown out the squawks for more money one hears from practically all public officials.
So why are we blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on a few pictures of Mars? Every time a space shuttle is lost (an inevitable consequence of spaceflight, no matter what we do), NASA spends about a year "reforming" itself. Well, what it really needs to do is some hard thinking about its purpose. Everything NASA does must have identifiable public benefits, or there is no justification for its existence. Providing entertainment to the public is not one of its purposes.
We can all see the benefits of satellites. They have revolutionized communications and navigation. They even play a key role in targeting weapons. But what are the benefits of the space station? Certainly the long-running Soviet space station did not keep that country out of bankruptcy. Shuttle flights are half-a-million dollars at least per trip, and they need to yield more public benefits than watching spiders spin webs in space or growing a tomato plant. High-school experiments can be done on the ground much more cheaply.
There is no source of public funds at any level except our wallets. I've been trying to get this message across, unsuccessfully, for years, but nevertheless, every penny spent by government at any level comes from people's income and property. The taxes include those erroneously called "fees" on a telephone bill today that are more than the telephone bill used to be as a whole. The trillions of dollars spent by governments are the trillions that people no longer can spend on their own and their family's welfare.
Therefore, every single American has a vested interest in the spending of every public dollar, and it's time the people who pay the bills start demanding accountability. We need government, but we need to make sure it doesn't waste our money. Maybe money comes easy to you, but I've been working since I was 11 years old. I don't want my money to prop up a ballet company that, on its own, would go bankrupt, or to send a fancy camera to Mars so we can learn what we already know — that it's a desolate planet. I darn sure don't want my money sent overseas to rebuild somebody else's country.
Like most people, I have a certain amount of curiosity about Mars and the other planets, but not $400 million worth. The scientists will no doubt have a jolly time looking at the Martian desert and studying its rocks, but it seems to me that the public will get zero benefits from the project.
© 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Prostitootsies?
Air conditioning?!
(slamming forehead repeatedly onto desk)
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | Norway | 50.00 |
1 |
50.00 |
14 |
3.57 |
|
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
I made a similar point on a previous thread and I got attacked by at least 8 different people. To me there are much more interesting and beautiful places on earth to visit. You couldn't pay me enough to spend 4 years of my life traveling back and forth to Mars. It is just no that interesting.
My father-in-law, a 40 year diabetic, who was kept alive many times by new procedures or machines that were a result of the space program often made this same sort of statement. People who don't understand science or the benefit thereof are wise not to comment on it.
I look at the mars pictures and see REAL ESTATE! The fact that it looks familiar makes me think it might be accessable. Does anyone doubt that we need someplace new to go??????
For me, the space program was all the last half of the 20thcentury had going for it that was positive. Everything else was liberal crap and the resulting carnage.
When "journalists" attack...LOL (ill take a space heater for what its worth)
Location, location, location. Lets see, there is no infrastruction, no easy way to get there, no water frontage, no nothing. I wouldn't pay a dime for an acre on mars. Well maybe a dime, but not much more.
I hope you aren't making the assumption that we couldn't have developed those things without the space program. Imagine what we could have done by attacking diabetes directly, rather than through the space program. I'd rather see money for new political stunts, disguised as a manned space program, go directly to diabetes research.
One could have argued that 200 years ago there was no need for the expence of exploring the West. After all there was plenty of room East of the Mississippi, why go to the waste and bother of seeing it? After all there are endless deserts, dinosaurs, and huge jagged impassible mountains of salt. Why put people in danger just to visit some wasteland?
In fact in 1802 Congress allocated $2500 to outfit the Lewis and Clark Expedition, although in the end it ended up costing $20,000.
The Result? Well I live in some of the most beautiful places on Earth (Bush called it Heaven on Earth in 2001) that was unexplored 150 years ago. It is rich in wildlife and natural resources and most of all Space.
Opening up new territory for exploration and colonization benefits the whole human race. Money spent on these trips have benefits back home. For one, who built the space craft, serviced and launched it? Americans, put to work. Who gets the benefits for the new technologies that were no doubt developed as a result of space exploration, again, Americans.
It's expensive, but in the end the benefits people at home 10 fold in the long run.
Good question, why have we spent trillions on poverty, hunger, etc. etc. and they haven't been solved by gubmint yet? Perhaps it's time to terminate some of these wasteful programs that are a couple of orders of magnitude greater than what's spent on NASA. At least I can pick up a magazine and find some answers to questions I'm interested in as a result of NASA's exploration. I recieve no benefit from all of these feel good social programs so why don't we terminate or privatize all of them?
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.