Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: 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.

100% is possible 100% of the time, your self-limiting beliefs
notwitstanding. Sorry, I simply don't agree with you.

: We ignore the vast majority of the information that bombards us.
: Human apathy is not only rational, it's essential.

You confuse choice with apathy. If you choose to be apathetic, then so be
it. I won't follow you.

In socialogical terms, what you are saying is tha the so-called "drift" is
more powerful than any or all of us. I doubt you are even aware of it
either. It is THAT ignorance (no offense) that creates apathy.

You really ought to try and challenge your strong self-limiting
beliefs. The irony is that they tend to be stronger in a manner parallel
their self-limitation.

: : 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.

There have been no major breakthroughs, but that is the nature of science
sometimes. Does that mean we should simply stop? Enter a dark age period,
self imposed?

: 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).

Both are being funded! Check out this page before you use terms like
"small fraction":
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182

: 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?

Mostly because we want to expand our domain. The earth at 7927 miles
in diameter isn't getting any bigger. Here while you're looking at dollars
flip (do your own 1 minute stopwatch check), check out this running
total: http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

: : 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.

And then you'd feel right about in a sense of progress? Exactly what sort
of military brat were you?

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

Well which is it?

: 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.

Sure they have. Do you think SpaceShip One was going to happen whether
NASA existed or not?

: 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.

It may not happen for awhile. If the same were said about the ARPAnet in
1985 as you are saying about space, then we might not even have the
Inetrnet as we do today. Instant gratification, the rampant disease of
youth, doesn't work for science anymore than it does for entertainment, in
any fulfilling way. The point is that the break even point in space may
not occur until we are dead. Does that mean we should stop now?

: : 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.

Hey, you yourself said that your father worked in the military end of
aerospace and you knew you wanted no part of it. My dad was in
military intel, which I could take or leave, but prefer space. It is YOU
that has the strong emotion against your father's field. Not me.

Eric

: Paul