![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. We ignore the vast majority of the information that bombards us. Human apathy is not only rational, it's essential. : 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. 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). 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? : 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. A real space program would survive public apathy, just like most government programs that deliver value don't excite the public. 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. 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. : 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. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CRACK THIS CODE!!! NASA CAN'T | zetasum | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 3rd 05 12:27 AM |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | History | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
Could a bullet be made any something that could go from orbit to Earth's surface? | Scott T. Jensen | Space Science Misc | 20 | July 31st 04 02:19 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
News: Astronaut; Russian space agency made many mistakes - Pravda | Rusty B | Policy | 1 | August 1st 03 02:12 AM |