Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: wrote:

: EELV is probably too expensive also. But Scott, the faults of
: any particular alternative do not justify the current loser approach.
:
: And the faults in this approach do not justify assuming that it's a
: "loser."

: Yes, they do. What else could?

: Going to the moon, by itself, is worth very little. It is only
: worthwhile indirectly, if it leads to something else that's directly
: valuable.
:
:
: Just as Apollo did. While Apollo was not allowed to reach it's full
: potential in lunar development, it lead, directly and indirectly, toa
: great many other advanced in sceince and economics. One way among many
: was inspiration.

: Apollo was a dead end for the same reason ESAS is a dead end.
: It costs far too much for what was delivered. I don't believe
: the spinoff claims for Apollo, and I noticed no one's even
: bothering to make them about ESAS (the embarrassing lack
: of even supposed spinoffs from Shuttle and ISS probably has
: something to do with that.)

: The scientific return from Apollo was low considering how much
: was spent. Science is the rationalization, the fig leaf, for
: manned space activities.

And unmanned is?

: About 'full potential': with an unlimited money spigot,
: Apollo could have done more on the moon. Also, everyone
: could get a pony.

: The ESAS approach doesn't do that. It's an economic
:
: dead end.
:
:
: As was the B-52 and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Yet... they're
: still successful.

: The B-52s and our nuclear carriers deliver militarily valuable services,
: most recently in Afghanistan. They're the descendants of less capable
: systems performing much the same kinds of missions, satisfying their
: military customers, winning battles and wars.

So war IS better and more "successful" than space exploration? You have a
strange sense of values.

: There is no similar history of worthwhile lunar manned activities
: (and, no, Apollo doesn't count). Simply delivering a few people to the
: moon may be interesting performance art,

You fool, art is life in this sense! Going to the moon was superior to all
of warfare from day one on earth.

: but it isn't actually *doing*
: anything that's worthwhile in and of itself. Nor does ESAS have much
: to do with being a precursor to a system that actually could be
: justified by value produced.

: No, terminating the manned space program is clearly a better approach.
:
:
: boggle
:
: Yeah. Right.

: See, Scott, there's your problem. When otherwise intelligent people
: such as yourself go so astray, it's often because their belief systems
: have some latent falsehoods. You take the worthiness of the manned
: space program as an item of almost religious dogma.

As compared to your take on war?! Sorry, I'm with Scott on this one.


Eric

: Paul