What technological advances have been specifically brought about by the manned space program that otherwise would not have been made? Inquiring minds want to know.
There are nearly limitless resources in space: precious metals, volitile chemicals, radioactives, water, energy, and so on.
Then why aren't they exploited now? I'll answer that one. They cost too much. The cost to obtain them is several orders of magnitude greater than their value. If you had an asteroid of pure gold orbiting near Jupiter it wouldn't be worth a thing because the cost to get it here would far outweigh any value it might have. In addition, all the data I've seen just points to rocks making up most of what is in space. We have rocks here.
There are many useful things that can be made in a zero-g environment, but to mass produce them will require that heavy industry be present in earth orbit.
Just exactly what useful things would these be? Again please be specific.
Without infrastructure like asteroid/lunar mines and fuel produciton centers in place, exporation and industrialization will likely be prohibitively expensive for business indefinitely.</>
Almost right. the last part "will likely be prohibitively expensive for business indefinitely" is assuredly true.
... the only group with the money, power, and clout to drive a space program is the US manned space program.
And where does this money come from. It is involuntarilyl extracted from earnings of every American who pays taxes. They aren't given the choice as to whether or not they want to fund a cynocal transfer of wealth from their pockets into the glutted coffers of the aerospace industry and the bank accounts of NASA's bureaucrats. Far better if it were left to be spent by the people who earned it.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Also, your data on asteroid composition is a bit off. A very large percentage of asteroids are of metallic composition. Some are in orbit of earth itself, though only for a few decades or centuries. Here is a site that desciribes the basics of asteroid classification/composition.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/asteroids.html
Also, it would be profitiable to do a search on NASA's homepage on new propulsion techniqes, or even here. Especially nuclear powered engines. You may be suprised!
This page has many links to articles about useful zero-g industries. In addition, one should consider the ease with which one can build vehicles when they don't have to deal with the rigors of atmosphere. Especially freighters and other large cargo-carrying craft.
http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/space/manuf.html
If you've checked the things that have been put up by me and other freepers, you'll begin to see that space isn't necessarily a money losing proposition at all. NEVER assume technology will be static--that is a common tactic of the envirals who worry about us running out of crude oil in 2150. It's like 18th century people worrying about what they'll do in 2000 when the whale oil runs out! he he
As for taxpayer dollars, yeah, paying taxes suck. Taxes should be as low as physically possible. Yet the government does have jobs it is constitionally required by law to do. National defense and infrastructure development are often cited by libertarians as some the few things they approve of, and the manned space program, with all of its potential benefit, definitely fits the bill. Compare NASA (15 billion/yr) with DOD (~350 billion/yr). It is a pittance, less than Gray Out's budget deficit.
I hope and pray that these things might change your mind just a little. :O)
FReepin cheers,
C13