Regarding the value of space flight

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Note that Nigeria's recent launch of a resource sat.

More accurately Nigeria's rental of a resource sat.


Cite? Everything I've read indicates they own it.

Everything I've read indicates that they paid someone else to design
and build it, then to launch it. Hardly qualifies in my book as a
"Nigerian" bird, as no local experience was gained except in the
writing of checks.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Note that Nigeria's recent launch of a resource sat.

More accurately Nigeria's rental of a resource sat.


Cite? Everything I've read indicates they own it.

Everything I've read indicates that they paid someone else to design
and build it, then to launch it. Hardly qualifies in my book as a
"Nigerian" bird, as no local experience was gained except in the
writing of checks.

In other words you can't back up your claim that it's rented?



D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In message , Derek Lyons
writes
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Note that Nigeria's recent launch of a resource sat.

More accurately Nigeria's rental of a resource sat.


Cite? Everything I've read indicates they own it.

Everything I've read indicates that they paid someone else to design
and build it, then to launch it.

It was probably designed about five miles from where I'm typing this,
and it may even have been built there! http://www.sstl.co.uk/ will have
more information.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:19:04 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

If you frame the whole thing as a jobs program, then sure. And I've skiied
and hiked on places where many men were paid to basically dig dirt and move
it. Thanks CCC. :-)

On behalf of my late father, you're welcome

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Paul Blay" wrote in message ...
"B.Alm" wrote ...
I have ever since Apollo 8 been a what some call a space buff. But
sometimes I wonder if it's really the right thing to do if you look at
it globally. I probably don't have to mention stuff like lack of
water, food, medicare etc. Yes, we are fortunate in the industrial
world (well, not all !).

I doubt that all these experiments that have to be performed in space
environment are (in the cases they really have to) correct to perform
instead of putting resources on problems mentioned above , some
yes, but not all.

This is the beginnings of the "How can we waste money on space when
we haven't eliminated poverty on Earth" type argument. It falls down on
two main points.
1. The money 'wasted' is pretty small potatoes compared to the budgets
of relevant governments.

No reason for space exploration

2. They never explain why it's _space_ that money shouldn't be spent on
when there is a whole heap o'stuff that money goes to (on individual as
well as governmental basis) that could be squeezed.


The question is what experiments require space environment and what
could be
simulated on earth. E.g the fantastic astronaut pen, authentic
astronaut food, you name it. I wonder if there is any real
investigation of what has been
accomplished in space and the pay-off. Any web-site about that ?

Next time someone tries the standard version of this argument, quiz them
on their household budget and ask them why the 23% spent on frivolities
isn't being sent to a suitable charity.

I wonder if there are anyone in this group that like me, has (even
the slightest) an ambivalent opinion about this or is it black or
white, 0 or 1, like a lot of discussions seem to show.

I'm not in favour of _all_ of the space activity to date, and planned.
However, with a few notable exceptions, I think it has been no more
wasteful than should be expected for something that includes hefty
lumps of pure science and early development.

Another important purpose of space flight is to fuel this group with
funtastic and interesting facts to discuss. So this question should be
sent to a more non-biased group.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
B.Alm wrote:
I have ever since Apollo 8 been a what some call a space buff. But
sometimes I wonder if it's really the right thing to do if you look at
it globally. I probably don't have to mention stuff like lack of
water, food, medicare etc...

By the same reasoning, the amount you spent on your computer would clearly
have been much better spent on aid to the poor, so you should sell it at
once and give the proceeds to a relief agency.

Good point ! So the question is: Is all space exploration and my time
spent at the computer worth doing ?

While we should not ignore the plight of the Third World entirely, it is
perfectly reasonable for us to have our own priorities for most of our
resources.

"We", the people in this group or the american people ?

Jim Davis wrote:
[snip]

Suppose there was a government agency which spent $15 billion
annually paying people to dig ditches and fill them in again. Do
you think the argument "the money 'wasted' is pretty small
potatoes compared to the budgets of relevant governments" is a
sound rebuttal to proposals to cut or eliminate such a program?

[snip]
Suppose there was a government agency which spent $15 billion
annually paying people to dig ditches and fill them in again. Do
you think the argument "there is a whole heap o'stuff that money
goes to (on individual as well as governmental basis) that could
be squeezed" is a sound rebuttal to proposals to cut or eliminate
such a program?

[snip]

Sounds like $15 billion being poured back into the economy. $15 billion
in the space program has the added benefit of producing solid research,
making discoveries, advancing our knowledge in many fields and who knows
what that may lead to?

(B.Alm) writes:

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
While we should not ignore the plight of the Third World entirely, it is
perfectly reasonable for us to have our own priorities for most of our
resources.

"We", the people in this group or the american people ?

That would be everyone. Unless you really believe that communism
works. It doesn't work, because there is no motivation to do any better
than your co-workers. Why should I work harder when the lazy workers
would benefit from my hard work just as much as I? This leads many
workers to be lazy and suffer from feelings that they have no control
over their life or their destiny. No matter what they do, they'll
still be doing the same job, making the same money, living in the same
housing...

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:
In message , Derek Lyons
writes
[Greg D. Moore] Note that Nigeria's recent launch of a resource sat.

[Derek Lyons] More accurately Nigeria's rental of a resource sat.


[Greg D. Moore] Cite? Everything I've read indicates they own it.

Everything I've read indicates that they paid someone else to design
and build it, then to launch it.

It was probably designed about five miles from where I'm typing this,
and it may even have been built there! http://www.sstl.co.uk/ will have
more information.

But still, in the context of the discussion, the point is that a
Nigerian action ("luanch", "rent", or "contract out") was undertaken
to provide Nigeria with information about their resources and the
state thereof.

Even NASA resource sats are mostly built by contractors.

/dps