Regarding the value of space flight

"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.

And your reducio ad absurdam ditch digging argument completely misses the point.

That the gov't expenditure on space is "small potatoes" does not imply that the
efforts are worthless. On the contrary, expenditures on space are defensible on
the basis or relative merit (Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture) and on the
economic value of basic science and applied science.

I would be willing to wager that for every dollar spent on basic science at
NASA, they also spend a dollar on medical research and earth sciences that
alleviate the conditions that the self-descibed space buff is sensitive to. If
I were running the show I would spend more on basic science and let the crop
watchers be damned, but I am not running the show.

Reminds me of one stupid bitch who complained about Apollo 11's waste of fuel
because she had to wait in line to buy gas

wassup wrote:

And your reducio ad absurdam ditch digging argument completely misses the point.

That the gov't expenditure on space is "small potatoes" does not imply that the
efforts are worthless.

He didn't say that. He objected to the defense that if something is small
potatoes, it is exempt from criticism regardless of its merits.

Paul

Even complete science isnt the main reason ISS exists

Political exhibition....

Okay...excuse me while I ask this one question then...WHAT DO YOU WANT?

What should we have in your damn little fantasy land? Point to me one damn
"vision of the future" that does NOT include an earth-orbital space station.

-A.L.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
Political exhibition....

How about exhibiting an answer to my question?
--
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.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
He didn't say that. He objected to the defense that if something is small
potatoes, it is exempt from criticism regardless of its merits.

Which excellently sums up why it's OK to criticise "scott". Even though he's
small potatoes, he isn't exempt from criticism.
--
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.

wassup wrote:

And your reducio ad absurdam ditch digging argument completely
misses the point.

How so?

That the gov't expenditure on space is "small potatoes" does
not imply that the efforts are worthless.

Of course not. Who said it did?

On the contrary,
expenditures on space are defensible on the basis or relative
merit (Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture) and on the
economic value of basic science and applied science.

Maybe they are. Note, however, Paul Blay didn't make this
argument. He opted for "small potatoes".

I would be willing to wager that for every dollar spent on
basic science at NASA, they also spend a dollar on medical
research and earth sciences that alleviate the conditions that
the self-descibed space buff is sensitive to.

Maybe. But the point is: "Are they getting good value for the
money spent?" The "small potatoes" argument doesn't even address
this point. Indeed, even making the "small potatoes" argument can
be seen as a tacit admission that space spending does *not* give
good value for the money spent. That's why it should be avoided.

Jim Davis

"Jim Davis
Indeed, even making the "small potatoes" argument can
be seen as a tacit admission that space spending does *not* give
good value for the money spent. That's why it should be avoided.

Jim Davis

Good point. The small size of an expense does not justify it if it is not a good
value. I think the small size argument is good to the extent that it corrects
the public misperception of the relative cost of the program vs govt as a whole.

As you might have heard, the foreign aid budget is the big offender here, as
most polls indicate that Americans put foreign aid at 10% of the budget and it
is only 1/2 of 1%.

"wassup" wrote in message
...

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.

I've heard of programs where they work to bring basic Internet service to
such regions.

As you say, some decry it as a waste. But they utterly fail to understand
the use. Sure, we love the Internet, we can spend hours surfing porn,
reading newsgroups, etc. But to assume others would do the same is naive.

Many places would like basic information such as timely weather reports.
Crop information. Heck, troop movement so they can flee in time. Or sure,
we think ordering the latest paperback from Amazon is the bee's knees. What
about ordering a book on small engine repair so someone can get the
community generator working again?

Ultimately information is power.


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 ****.

Note that Nigeria's recent launch of a resource sat.

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

More accurately Nigeria's rental of a resource sat.

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:
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.


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.