Jeff Findley wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Pete Lynn wrote:


Usually your statements can at least be justified in one dubious context
or another, but for this one, it is hard to go past stupid. Just because
the returns of some projects can be very long term and very distributed
does not mean that they do not have to be profitable.



Yeah? Let us all know when the US Air Force turns a profit.



No profit, but there are tangible benefits to maintaining a viable US Air
Force.


And you think there woudl be no benefits to maintaining a permanent
lunar presence or manned missiosn to Mars?



What I find particularly offensive is that the $100 billion wasted by
this government affiliated monopolistic power group


Not much point in trying to make sense of anything past this point. NASA
is not a monopoly on space power.



It sure acts like it is. Building and maintaining their own launch vehicles
and launch facilities when they could buy commercial launches strikes me as
the pinnacle of NIH syndrome.


That may be, but it does not make them a monopoly. Again, the Russians
and the Chinese can help you oput. Space-X, T/space and others are also
doign their bit. Now, if these companies cannot make a go of it without
NASA funding... then they are not an improvement.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller