Ernie: Well, as the footnote to the article says about the authors -- U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter,..., is a Colorado Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Pete Olson is a Texas Republican. For starters, just to look at opposition to killing manned space flight, viz pro-manned space flight, there is bi-partisan interest. Too mild a term, bi-partisan angst and real desire to see it develop into something serious. And there is a bi-partisan nationwide constituency. That is, here is an opportunity for RC involvement , at least to some degree. Secondly, a US retreat from Space is no different than conceding leadership to other countries, not just China and India, but also the EU, Russia, Japan, and --don't look now, but already far past the early stages-- Iran. Very bad, it seems to me, in terms of US leverage in all sorts of areas, from diplomacy to education to various kinds of high tech and, not incidentally, hard science. Granted, there are compensations in other fields, but Space is not only a fundamental area for research, but is also high prestige. And high prestige translates into high leverage. We are potentially about to throw this away, or throw away a major element in Space exploration. Yes, our unmanned program is still on track, and some of that could be rather spectacular ( Pluto is on schedule for 2016, I believe, there is a craft headed there as we speak ), but nothing tops "boots on the ground, " viz lunar or Martian ground. I'm all for investment in autos or new coal technology or the deep sea. But it isn't " either / or." It is, or always can be, " both / and." We see where Europe has gotten with its slashed military budgets. No longer a premier military factor, it has fallen almost to the status of Russia. As an "also ran." The decline was not instantaneous but it happened nonetheless. That could be the trajectory the admin wants to put us on now, even if it won't use this kind of terminology. "Wants to," said advisedly, because Congress will have the final say about all of this, not the WH. For now the Democrats are in charge, and my best guess is that the GOP won't be able to retake control this November even if Dem majorities are reduced. But we all know that since the time of JFK / LBJ / even Carter, in terms of Space, the party is "isolationist." It is the tech / science equivalent of the politics of America First and Pat Buchanan. Which is ironic, to put it mildly. "W" was such a putz, such an idiot, such a dolt about all kinds of things. But about Space, damned if he wasn't a visionary in the best sense of the word. Anyway, while the metaphor is just that, and can be criticized, it seems to me that all forms of isolationism are myopic and ill-advised Hell, isolationism is stupid. As for hard benefits from Space, besides what the material you provided said, there has been microminiaturization in various areas, major advances in deep Space astronomy ( Hubble requires human servicing ), new metals technologies, new fabrics, new ceramics technologies, etc, as well as new propulsion systems. Think JPL. The cost , all things considered, is modest. $3 billion or so per year, about the same as the budget for the National park Service. Congress and the WH think nothing about a trillion here and a trillion there for Wall Street, closing in on a thousand times of difference , and that is quite OK ? And what do we get for that money ? Rich sons of bitches in NY who feel entitled to throw people out on the streets when they can't meet balloon mortgage payments. This is not right, it is as wrong as anything gets. And the problem, just like its solution, is bi-partisan. My humble opinion anyway Billy ===================================================== In a message dated 4/5/2010 11:31:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, On Apr 5, 2010, at 10:15 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Is human space exploration worth it? If not, why are nations like China and India ramping up their programs? Clearly they know what America has known for years: The direct investment alone is worth the cost, and the indirect benefits lead to economic drivers and scientific discoveries that far exceed expectations. I'm not sure I buy that argument anymore. Yes, we got some nice stuff from space: _http://seds.org/archive/technology/spinoffs.shtml_ (http://seds.org/archive/technology/spinoffs.shtml) But does that justify the cost? And compared to the 1950's (or even the 1980's), government R&D isn't nearly the innovation driver it used to be. Right now, it costs NASA half-a-billion dollars for *each* Space Shuttle flight: _http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10_ (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10) What if we had plowed that money into high-efficiency automobiles, or environmentally-friendly coal mining? Yes, at one level I grieve the loss of the manned space program. OTOH, ever since the Challenger disaster I've mostly lost faith in NASA as a bastion of innovation and cutting-edge research (my friends at JPL excepted :-). Maybe instead of flogging the corpse of a once-great institution, we should find a way turn those creative juices in a whole new direction. Like say, the ocean: _http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5367/is_200410/ai_n21358468/_ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5367/is_200410/ai_n21358468/) I agree the ocean isn't as sexy as space, especially post-Jacques-Costeua. But maybe it could be. What was the name of that TV show -- basically an underwater version of Star Trek? -- Ernie P. = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
