Regarding the value of space flight

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.

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.

Remember there is a lobby in this group as well as people living for
space flight, and living ON space flight that will always talk in
favor for this matter.

BA

----
Neil Armstrong to a group of well-wishers
at an air show who wanted to hear what it had been like to walk on the
moon:
"Pilots take no special joy in walking, pilots like flying."
----

"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.
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.

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.

I think it has been no more
wasteful than should be expected for something that includes hefty
lumps of pure science and early development.


Ahh ISS is a second generation station and just where is the hefty lump of
science at ISS anyway.

Our station is a political exhibition and boondoggle

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
just where is the hefty lump of
science at ISS anyway.

It's probably hanging out in the same place your answer to my question is.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

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.

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.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

(Hallerb) wrote:

I think it has been no more
wasteful than should be expected for something that includes hefty
lumps of pure science and early development.


Ahh ISS is a second generation station and just where is the hefty lump of
science at ISS anyway.

I don't know about you, but I don't generally expect to live in a
house half completed, nor shop at a store with the roof missing, nor
work in an office with no services installed.

Only idiots ask why a half complete facility has yet to perform it's
mission.

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.

Paul Blay wrote:

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.

It certainly is a poor argument but your rebuttals aren't any
better.

1. The money 'wasted' is pretty small potatoes compared to the
budgets of relevant governments.

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?

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.

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?

There is only one sound rebuttal to proposals to eliminate or cut
space spending - demonstrate that such spending gives good value
for the money. Arguments like yours remind of a guy I used to
know - he would ask the cop why he was pulling him over for
speeding when his stolen bicycle hadn't been recovered yet.

Jim Davis

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Paul Blay wrote:

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.

It certainly is a poor argument but your rebuttals aren't any
better.

1. The money 'wasted' is pretty small potatoes compared to the
budgets of relevant governments.

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?



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. :-)



Jim Davis

I don't know about you, but I don't generally expect to live in a
house half completed, nor shop at a store with the roof missing, nor
work in an office with no services installed.

Only idiots ask why a half complete facility has yet to perform it's

Even complete science isnt the main reason ISS exists

Political exhibition....

"Henry Spencer"
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.

Some people who ostensibly speak in favor of doing good for the Thrid World
unwittingly endorse policies that are not in the best interests of the
economically disadvantaged.

I spent one summer with a family in a poor country. Their family income was $75
per month, which is close to the $1 per day that 3rd world folks live on.

The family had running water (intermittent), electricity ($4 per month), good
food, clothes (the only thing the planet has plenty of) , shelter, color TV, a
small motorcycle, and a refrigerator. I contributed phone service ($16 per
month - rather expensive) and a washing machine.

What they didn't have was disposible cash, adequate health care, books,
newspapers, or magazines. Internet service was available, but since the phone
system was based on measured service, this incurred an additional charge of one
or two cents per minute, plus a $10 per month subscription. All together, this
made the Internet beyond the financial ability of a typical family. It would be
about like paying $150 a month plus 5 cents per minute in the developed
world.....not an attractive proposition.

A feature of the third world is a lack of cash flow and also a lack of
information flow. The impression that I had was that an affordable internet
service would be the best way to connect these people to their neigbors.
Communication and access to information resources would be a real asset in
raising living standards.

A few days after I got home I read an editorial by some fool who said that it
was silly to install internet service in the third world since there were other
things that they needed more. I think this is utterly wrong. The third world
has many of the basic essentials already. They need more phones and computers.

(The local politicians were morons since the per-minute charges on the
state-owned phone worked to retard economic development more than the few
pennies that they collect.)

The space buff fails to mention environmental satellites that warn nations like
Somalia of impending crop failures, avoiding unnecesary instances of dead
people, but then a buff at anything is sort of another way of saying they don't
really much give a ****.