Eric Chomko wrote:

: The general populace's apathy is a rational response to the situation.

Human apathy is never rational. Emotional at best.

Nonsense, Eric. Each of us has limited time and mental energy.
We ignore the vast majority of the information that bombards us.
Human apathy is not only rational, it's essential.


: What, exactly, is the manned space program doing for them or their
: descendants?

Allowing technology to advance, which is the only argument for war these
days. Paul, you have one of two choices, war of space, which is it? W
wants both, but that is another story.

The advances in technology from ESAS don't appear to lead anywhere,
any more than the advances in technology in STS and ISS led anywhere.

War vs. space is a false dichotomy. If space were so valuable,
it would be funded, even with the current war (which is consuming
a small fraction of the federal budget).

Space is a luxury that we want to be able to aford.

'We can afford it' is the weakest justification for an action.
How about explaining why we'd *want* to spend money on it?


: More people were interested, until after the first landing or two.
: ISS on the moon is not going to be any more interesting than ISS
: in LEO, except perhaps if astronauts start dying there.

Will you actually cheer the latter? You know your smug satisfaction for
being right...

I've stated here before that a real space program would be killing
many more astronauts, simply because so many would be in space.

A real space program would survive public apathy, just like most
government programs that deliver value don't excite the public.

But without NASA paving the way, how do you think that will happen? Do you
think we'd have an internet without ARPAnet having paved the way?

But ESAS *isn't* paving the way, any more than Apollo, STS, or ISS have.
It's more expensive dead-end makework. As I've said, show me
a manned space program that makes sense, that really does have
a plausible path to the self-sustaining, self-funding expansion
into space, and I would support it. No one has done that. ESAS
is so very far from that it's ridiculous.

: Since ESAS won't do anything significant to advance that goal,
: killing NASA would be no worse, and would save money.

Says you, that has an emotional hatred for NASA. Is it tied to your
father? The hatred I mean?

I realize you react negatively to criticism of your love object,
but don't project your own irrationality onto me.

Paul