Paul F. Dietz wrote:

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.


Irrational logic, as any investor in a new technology, process,
industry, whatever, will tell you. Producing wealth requires the
expenditure of wealth. Just as there is no manned space activity that
produces wealth, neither is there a stem cell activity that produces
wealth or aquantum computer that produces wealth or a supersonic
aircraft that produces wealth or an unmanned scientific space probe that
produces wealth.






: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.


Greeeeaaaat. Cut, what, six or eight billion dollars per year out of a
two-trillion dollar budget? That'll help.


But maybe all that's meaningless to you.


A budget cut of 0.3%, while forfeiting the future? Yeah. That's *worse*
than meaningless.



--
"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