In article ,
quibbler wrote:

No, that is quite the case. You're just in the early stages of denial
and haven't faced budget realities. The fact is that Bush has demanded a
wasteful realignment of NASA resources toward a manned mission which will
be ruinously expensive.

The realignment of NASA resources is the best thing to happen to NASA in
30 years. Not wasteful, but highly useful. Allowing NASA to drift
about with the lack of focus it's had for the last few decades, now THAT
would be wasteful.

The fact is that real science is far too
expensive with a manned program.

I agree. So let's not attempt to do real science. Let's work on
opening the frontier for human habitation instead.

Robots must lead the way.

Robots have their place, but to get people living in space we really
need to have people living in space.

It would be more accurate to call this an 'exploration plan'.

No it wouldn't you republican shill. We can explore without manned
missions or a permanent moon base.

Not if by "exploration" you mean "expanding the range of places people
have visited and experienced firsthand," which is certainly what *I*
mean by it.

Bush is destroying the real science programs because he just doesn't get it.

Or maybe you're clinging to them because YOU don't get it. I don't care
about "real science." Real science isn't putting people on the Moon.
And I want people on the Moon. When the next killer asteroid comes our
way (or substitute your favorite global catastrophe), having pretty
pictures of distant galaxies and a deep understanding of the cosmos
isn't going to save humanity.

"Exploration" is just a bull**** buzzword. You apparently weren't smart
enough to figure that out, so I'm afraid I've got to break it to you bluntly.

Heh. More like, you haven't got a leg to stand on, so you're reduced to
swearing and other insults. More pity to you.

maintenance, and towards more exploration and science.

Bull****. We do science and exploration with unmanned probes. Period.
It would be inordinately dangerous with present technology to do any kind
of detailed science with manned missions.

Science science science... why exactly do you believe that space
development (or more specifically, NASA's expenditures) should be about
science? The "S" in NASA doesn't stand for Science, you know.

It's obvious that our present
technology is not quite up to the task of serious "exploration" as it is.
Relying upon it for a manned program is crazy.

Demonstrably false, given that a dozen people have been to the Moon
already, for days at a time. We just need to redevelop that capability,
and add infrastructure that allows for longer stays, reduced costs,
greater safety, etc.

a.. Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions
of scientific and societal importance.

The only compelling question the Bush admin wants answered is "Can we
beat the chinese back to the moon and waste hundreds of billion in the
process?"

Interesting how you first talk about examining the budget, and then
later demonstrate that you haven't done so yourself.

Getting back to the whole robot and human thing, we can't expect to just
send one or two probes and then humans. We need to send probe after
probe to look at things in depth.

I have no doubt that unmanned craft will be a regular part of developing
the Moon. But the point of that development is human habitation.

The money that we spend on the robotics
program will have important spin offs here on earth. Not so with a great
deal of manned space technology, which would primarily be useful only
off-world.

....and off-world technology is exactly what we need to develop.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'