Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Ah, and because people were doing that, it couldn't be irrational.
:As we all know, people are never irrational.

Well, most people most of the time. You seem to be pretty irrational
on this particular topic.

Actually, the opposite is the case. You are the producing the strained
rationalizations.


:I object to massively expensive government entertainment programs
:for space fans. I reject that notion that 'getting people interested
:in space' is a worthwhile goal.

Then we really have nothing further to say to each other.
I'm interested in seeing people interested in space so that space industry
goes somewhere. You've just stated that you don't think this is a
worthwhile goal.

The flaw in your thinking is the idea that getting people interested
in space will lead to the space industry going somewhere. Lack of
interest hasn't been the roadblock. Lack of worthwhile application
of space is the roadblock. All the excited elementary school
students in the world won't change that.

:A manned space program, IMO, must
:be justified by the objective good it does for the country, and
:by its cost. IMO, ESAS fails to measure up.

So you are against all manned space.

If all manned space is a net wealth-destroyer then, yes, I am
against manned space. If there are manned space activities that
produce net wealth, then I am not opposed to them.


:Well, at least you're off the 'getting people interested' thing here.

Not really, no. You just don't understand why that is a valuable
thing to be doing.

I usually try to not agree with falsehoods. You don't understand why
it's *not* a valuable thing.

:The problem is, ESAS doesn't 'get over the hump' either.

Certainly not by itself. Nothing does, so we should all retire to our
nice boxes full of cotton batting. Everything is forever undoable.

Tell me, how bad would ESAS have to be for you to not like it?
Is there any limit to your boosterism?


:Lots of people would remain interested in the future. They would
:be less interested in your particular flawed view of the future.

Yes, lots of people aren't interesting in seeing people in space. Of
course, YOU wouldn't have the toys YOU like without government space
programs that, at the time, were seen as 'pointless', either.

What toys are those? Are you repeating the old, tired 'integrated
circuits are space spinoffs' claim?

on't be so self centered.

Ah, can't argue the merits, can we, Paul?

I do, but, alas, like any good ideologue, you seem to be
impervious to them.


:As for where the money could go... gosh, maybe the government
:could just NOT SPEND IT?

And not spending it does what? Other than kill space, I mean.

It reduces the debt burden on our descendants. It allows reduction
in taxes. It allows us to spend the wealth created by our labor
as we see fit, not as the government sees fit.

But maybe all that's meaningless to you.



:But in this case, remember that US expendable launcher programs
:were explicitly targeted for termination so shuttle would have
:more customers. Had shuttle not been developed, this wouldn't
:have happened. As it stands, the expendable programs were restarted,
:at considerable cost, when it became clear how disastrous the
:shuttle program would be. But by that time a decade or more
:had been wasted.

That doesn't seem to follow, Paul.

Hey, I'm sorry you're disconnected from reality, Fred.
Maybe this article will jar your out of your foolish delusions:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/470/1

In fact, you would have been one of the folks arguing against the
change. After all, what do we need those new expendables for?

To launch those unmanned satellites that are producing actual
benefits, commercial, scientificm, and military.

: I can't find a single reason to believe that.
:
:Sucks to be you, I guess.

Not really, no. However, your vision seems to be mighty selective....

See the above link, and stop spewing crap, please.

Paul