> >When the administration announces grand plans for manned space programs i > >FEEL > >proud, excited, and--yes--even inspired. > > > >And that feeling immediately makes me suspicious. Is this fiscally > >responsible? Is it rational? I think, no, I *KNOW* that basing public > >policy on emotion IS irresponsible -- unpatriotic. > > > >In brute, lowest common denominatior terms what is in this gold-plated > > fools' errand for me? When Isabella sent Columbus to look for a route to > > the Indies she wasn't investing in exploration. Exploration was a nice > > side effect. Isabella's primary motivation was making a LOT OF MONEY! > > > >If we build a big new booster what will be the tangible return on > > investment? What about the crew vehicle? The moon colony? How the @#$% > > do you plan to get tangible ROI from a manned mission to Mars? > > > >If you do get ROI will it make sense in terms of opportunity cost. We > > have underfunded schools, biomedical research, and ageing population and > > military obligations we need to see to, remember. > > > >Money or national security only please. I believe that as a citizen I > > have a *responsibility* to resist temptation and make decisisons as a > > pure Philistine. As a citizen I dont care a whit about pure science, the > > human quest, or feel-good programs. > > WADR, you sound pretty "emotional" here . . .
Well, perhaps I am. I would like a good reason to execute the "Lets go to Mars" program. Unfortunately, no one has given me a good reason. You will not suffer liberals fiscal mismanagement. I am a fiscal conservative. How, pray tell, is going to Mars good fiscal policy? It seems like a big waste of money to me. I'd *LIKE* to be proven wrong. But so far people have only gotten angry at me for expecting them to meet the same burden of proof they put on others. And maybe the problem is that I brought up social programs. NASA doesn't even compete with them. Should we take money from the airforce? What about from particle physics? It doesn't matter, airforce weapon systems, automated space exploration, parks, medical research, it all should meet the same burden of proof. Why, in terms of national defense or the national economy, is this program good public policy? Why should it crowd out any of a dozen other competing programs? What is the tangible benefit from the program? What will be the tangible benefits from a manned mission to Mars? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
