Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : 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?

: Unmanned is... not what I was talking about. You'll notice
: I was talking about terminating the *manned* space program.

Yet, you don't have the guts to single out red-state NASA for it. Hell, I
see NASA red-states wasting money and getting away with it like no NASA
blue-state could. Yet, you want something, but have no idea of what it
would entail politically.

: There are unmanned space activities that clearly do deliver
: value justifying their cost.

Check it out, everyone of them is in a blue-state. Don't believe me? Check
it out!

: : 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.

: I will readily admit war, overall, has been very wasteful. The cold war
: consumed, what, $20 trillion in current dollars? In many cases not
: fighting would be even more costly, however. Do you think, for example,
: that we should not have used bombers and carriers in WW2? That we
: should not have gone to war with Afghanistan after 9/11?

I agree with WWII and Afghanistan, but disagree with Iraq, as it was a
ruse. Which we are beginning to find out with leaks of CIA agent's names,
etc. But with advent of the bomb war has changed. Do you not agree?

: There are objective goals in war separate from the goals of those
: building weapons systems. The bombers and carriers did clearly
: successfully meet those objective criteria by which we can call
: them 'successes'.

NASA contractors do the same regardless of what you think about manned
spaceflight.

: The 'success' of manned spaceflight has been largely one of meeting
: arbitrary, self-defined goals.

Which is typical in a prototypical environment such as manned spaceflight.

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

: Risible nonsense, Chomko. A war to defeat a genocidal dictator bent
: on world conquest, for example, is incomparably more valuable and
: worthwhile than a program that, at enormous cost, sent 12 people
: to the moon. A war to eliminate slavery, for example, is more valuable.
: A war to replace autocracy with democracy, as fought here in
: the 18th century, is clealy more valuable.

So you admit that no war since WWII other than the brief stint in
Afghanistan was worth fighting? That would leave going to the moon as more
useful than war during the same time. Okay, I overspoke when I said from
day 1, but certainly true since WWII.

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

: You're obviously more than slightly nuts on the war subject, Chomko.
: But thanks for the entertainment.

No, we can spend money on needless wars or space exploration. I opt for
space. You show me a useful war and I'l reconsider, but if you want me to
say that Iraq is more important than space, forget it.

Eric

: Paul