THREE! (not one) pieces of insulation hit the left wing of Columbia. :(

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Eddie the Dane *
**Yes, and China was serious about the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, too, were they not? How did that one turn out? I find it humorous and sad that you think China is a shining example of anything other than low cost, low quality, high volume shoddy manufactured materials. **

Yeah a nation which produces shoddy quality goods could never produce a nuclear weapon, oh wait, China has them along with India and Pakistan. China also managed to give the US a run for it’s money in a little place called Korea, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

You’re assuming that because China hasn’t produced consumer products with the quality that Japan has, that they’re somehow incapable of learning how to do so, it seems to me. I’m barely into my third decade of life and I can remember when Japanese made goods were considered inferior to their American counterparts. If the Japanese can figure out how to build things better than the US, the Chinese can do it as well.

What’s that saying Arthur C. Clarke has? Everytime an expert announces that something is impossible you can bet it will be done within fifty years? And I’ll disagree with Cecil here, and take my lumps for it, but it’s waaay too early to say that space exploration’s a waste of money. We’ve sent a handful of people a few miles out into the ocean with a canoe in the years since the space program began. That’s it. Stopping now, is like caveman Og stopping shortly after he leaves the French coast and turning back instead of crossing the English Channel. Sooner or later, humanity will expand into space, and you can bet that none of those folks will doubt the value of the space program.

[Eddie_the_Dane]

*Originally posted by Tuckerfan *
**Yeah a nation which produces shoddy quality goods could never produce a nuclear weapon, oh wait, China has them along with India and Pakistan. China also managed to give the US a run for it’s money in a little place called Korea, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

**
Love your patronizing and condescending comment - and since you’re slightly ignorant of history here, remember that China had an ENORMOUS advantage in manpower in Korea, and we still beat them soundly. So I’d hardly use that example!

You’re assuming that because China hasn’t produced consumer products with the quality that Japan has, that they’re somehow incapable of learning how to do so, it seems to me. I’m barely into my third decade of life and I can remember when Japanese made goods were considered inferior to their American counterparts. If the Japanese can figure out how to build things better than the US, the Chinese can do it as well.

Of course they could if they WANTED to, but then again, where would their competitive advantage over anyone else lie? Once they are tasked with producing better quality goods at decent wages, their costs of manufacture would rise just like everyone else’s. China’s economy depends on this shoddy situation.

**What’s that saying Arthur C. Clarke has? Everytime an expert announces that something is impossible you can bet it will be done within fifty years?

**
Wow…an Arthur Clarke quotation. He’s the expert on…what exactly? Science fiction? Color me unimpressed.

**And I’ll disagree with Cecil here, and take my lumps for it, but it’s waaay too early to say that space exploration’s a waste of money. We’ve sent a handful of people a few miles out into the ocean with a canoe in the years since the space program began.

**
Indeed - and how many billions of dollars has it cost us? And what are the demonstrable, tangible benefits to accrue to us? Pretty much nil other than the perpetuation of the space program. No thanks. You obviously think space exploration is neato. Bully for you. But my tax dollars can be much more effectively spent elsewhere. Go pay for your “neato” things yourself and leave me out of it, if you don’t mind.

** That’s it. Stopping now, is like caveman Og stopping shortly after he leaves the French coast and turning back instead of crossing the English Channel. Sooner or later, humanity will expand into space, and you can bet that none of those folks will doubt the value of the space program. **

Well, you have a knack for hyperbole, that’s for sure. However, aside from your own passion for this, you have shown no reason whatsoever for our space program to be continued. And it’ll be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time before humanity expands into space - I very much doubt our great great great great grandchildren will ever see it, let alone you or I.

[Tuckerfan]

Eddie, let’s be civil here, after this is GD and not the Pit, okay?

First of all, if we beat the Chinese so soundly in Korea, then why are there still two Koreas? The Korean War was a bloody, nasty mess, that’s still going on.

As for China’s economy being dependant on producing shoddily made goods at low wages, that’s a temporary thing. Japan and South Korea’s economies were both dependant on such things and have moved on.

As for Clarke, yes he has written lots of science fiction novels, he’s also the guy who came up with the idea of the communication satellite, and he’s done a few other things as well. To categorically dismiss something that Clarke says because he’s written science fiction novels is a bit foolish.

NASA’s budget, since it’s inception has probably averaged about $20 billion a year. So, if NASA’s been around for 45 years that means we’ve spent $90 billion dollars total, for the space program. That’s not counting what the Soviets/Russian, Chinese, Europeans and others in the private sector have spent on space travel. Can you prove that the $90 billion which NASA has been given during those years would have been able to end the following things: Homelessness, war, drug abuse, hunger, the declining educational system, or disease? Because we’ve been trying for most of human history (some 100,000 years) and spent untold trillions of dollars on those things, without getting them licked. Seems to me that one could easily argue that spending money on trying to end those things is even more foolish than blowing it on the space program. After all, we’ve spent even more money, time, and brain power on ending those things, but still haven’t managed to end them. (Be nice if we could, though, wouldn’t it?)

Yet we still spend money, time, and effort combating all those things. Why? Because we know that it may pay off some day. The space program certainly can be lumped in that category as well. It may not have paid the kind of dividends that you’d like, but it has paid some dividends. Fighting homelessness may not pay the kind of dividends that I like (We still don’t have mass produced, high quality houses of the kind that Buckminster Fuller designed back in the 1940s for sale cheap.), but it does pay dividends.

As for when we humanity expands into space, only time will tell.

[Eddie_the_Dane]

*Originally posted by Tuckerfan *
**Eddie, let’s be civil here, after this is GD and not the Pit, okay?

First of all, if we beat the Chinese so soundly in Korea, then why are there still two Koreas? The Korean War was a bloody, nasty mess, that’s still going on.

**
We have Harry Truman to thank for that deplorable outcome, Tucker. His reluctance to commit to a real victory presaged the (even worse) political resolution of Vietnam. But on point, militarily we crushed the Chinese in that campaign with far fewer troops than they had.

**As for China’s economy being dependant on producing shoddily made goods at low wages, that’s a temporary thing. Japan and South Korea’s economies were both dependant on such things and have moved on.

**
So you say - so what is your thesis here - that all Asian economies work identically? That’s silly - China has an entirely different economic and political structure compared to either South Korea and Japan. I notice you conveniently left out the less than unimpressive economies of Communist North Korea and Vietnam - I wonder why?

**As for Clarke, yes he has written lots of science fiction novels, he’s also the guy who came up with the idea of the communication satellite, and he’s done a few other things as well. To categorically dismiss something that Clarke says because he’s written science fiction novels is a bit foolish.

**
Arthur Clarke is responsible for the idea of the communication satellite? Ludicrous! And the site you are linking to is from the Arthur Clarke Institute - they’re not going to have an exactly objective nor impartial attitude about him now are they?

**NASA’s budget, since it’s inception has probably averaged about $20 billion a year. So, if NASA’s been around for 45 years that means we’ve spent $90 billion dollars total, for the space program.

**
Ummmmmm…do the math Tucker. At an average run rate of $20 bill per year, they hit $90 billion in four and a half years - how about the actual expenditure of closer to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS??? That’s what’s been spent if your numbers are anywhere close to reality, and I suspect they may actually be on the conservative side. So just WTF have we bought with our ONE TRILLION DOLLARS??? Beats me!

**That’s not counting what the Soviets/Russian, Chinese, Europeans and others in the private sector have spent on space travel.

**
Why on earth should I or anyone else be concerned about non-tax monies wasted on space? I couldn’t be less concerned with what other nations and private organizations spend on their space efforts.

** Can you prove that the $90 billion which NASA has been given during those years would have been able to end the following things: Homelessness, war, drug abuse, hunger, the declining educational system, or disease? Because we’ve been trying for most of human history (some 100,000 years) and spent untold trillions of dollars on those things, without getting them licked. Seems to me that one could easily argue that spending money on trying to end those things is even more foolish than blowing it on the space program. After all, we’ve spent even more money, time, and brain power on ending those things, but still haven’t managed to end them. (Be nice if we could, though, wouldn’t it?)

**
I don’t have to prove anything about those other programs, Tucker. The simple fact is that money NOT spent on NASA could have been returned to the national economy by simply lowering taxes. I for one wouldn’t mind an extra couple hundred bucks in my pocket every year rather than seeing NASA piss it away on science freaks’ wet dream projects that don’t result in any concrete benefits.

**Yet we still spend money, time, and effort combating all those things. Why? Because we know that it may pay off some day. The space program certainly can be lumped in that category as well. It may not have paid the kind of dividends that you’d like, but it has paid some dividends. Fighting homelessness may not pay the kind of dividends that I like (We still don’t have mass produced, high quality houses of the kind that Buckminster Fuller designed back in the 1940s for sale cheap.), but it does pay dividends.

**
Oh…so “may pay off” is an adequate rationale for pissing away this amount of money? If you run the numbers, it would have been better for the government to spend $20 billion/year on lottery tickets! Your logic just defies logic - because apparently to you there is no amount which could be considered too much to spend on the program. I for one am fascinated that you seem not to care in the slightest how little benefit is obtained for the vast sums of our nation’s wealth the space program has pissed away over the years. And comparing it to other, REAL national issues? That’s just ridiculous - truly a mark of desperation IMHO.

**As for when we humanity expands into space, only time will tell. **

I promise you that neither you, nor I, nor our great great great great grandchildren will live to see a day when any human being may freely traverse from the earth to any other celestial body. As Clint Eastwood once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I suggest you consider the practical limitations which would tend to make your fantasy untenable.

[scr4]

*Originally posted by Eddie the Dane *
Arthur Clarke is responsible for the idea of the communication satellite? Ludicrous! And the site you are linking to is from the Arthur Clarke Institute - they’re not going to have an exactly objective nor impartial attitude about him now are they?

Is a NASA history page a good enough source for you? How about the European Space Agency? Every reference I’ve read states that Clarke was the first person to propose the idea of using a geostationary satellite as a readio relay.

The simple fact is that money NOT spent on NASA could have been returned to the national economy by simply lowering taxes.

“Could have been” is not the same as “would have been.”

** Your logic just defies logic - because apparently to you there is no amount which could be considered too much to spend on the program. I for one am fascinated that you seem not to care in the slightest how little benefit is obtained for the vast sums of our nation’s wealth the space program has pissed away over the years.**

And you seem to be implying that scientific research and development of new technologies can never be justified. Because basic research never works that way - if you only pursue projects which you know are profitable, there will never be any new breakthroughs in science or technology.

If that’s not what you are saying, then how do you propose to determine the reasonable level of funding for basic research and development? That includes not just space exploration but all basic research.

**I promise you that neither you, nor I, nor our great great great great grandchildren will live to see a day when any human being may freely traverse from the earth to any other celestial body. As Clint Eastwood once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I suggest you consider the practical limitations which would tend to make your fantasy untenable. **

What a short-sighted and selfish way to look at the world. Nobody is pretending that we are anywhere close to creating self-sufficient colonies or interstellar spacecraft. I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes 200 more years. But if we don’t start somewhere, we’ll never get there. Whether we should be spending $100 million a year or $100 billion is subject to debate, but I don’t see how you can justify spending zero dollars.

And there is no reason to think that it is “untenable.” There is no theoretical reason to think interstellar travel is impossible. Besides, nobody is saying that interstellar travel is the sole goal of NASA.

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Eddie the Dane *

---

We have Harry Truman to thank for that deplorable outcome, Tucker. His reluctance to commit to a real victory presaged the (even worse) political resolution of Vietnam. But on point, militarily we crushed the Chinese in that campaign with far fewer troops than they had.**

Unless I’m miss remembering my history, it was Eisenhower who ended the active phase of the Korean War.

**
So you say - so what is your thesis here - that all Asian economies work identically? That’s silly - China has an entirely different economic and political structure compared to either South Korea and Japan. I notice you conveniently left out the less than unimpressive economies of Communist North Korea and Vietnam - I wonder why?**

Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because they aren’t actively pursuing a space program or aren’t rapidly switching to a market economy? I, for one, will not make the mistake of assuming that the Chinese are stupid and unwilling to change. Especially since they are changing and have one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

**
Arthur Clarke is responsible for the idea of the communication satellite? Ludicrous! And the site you are linking to is from the Arthur Clarke Institute - they’re not going to have an exactly objective nor impartial attitude about him now are they?**

I think scr4 covered this well enough.

**
Ummmmmm…do the math Tucker. At an average run rate of $20 bill per year, they hit $90 billion in four and a half years - how about the actual expenditure of closer to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS??? That’s what’s been spent if your numbers are anywhere close to reality, and I suspect they may actually be on the conservative side. So just WTF have we bought with our ONE TRILLION DOLLARS??? Beats me!**

I’m WAGing the numbers. The Apollo missions cost something like $22 billion total and since then NASA’s budget has held steady at $15 billion dollars, what it was before the Apollo program, I have no idea, but I know it was considerably less than what it was during the Apollo years. As for what you’ve gotten, well, you don’t seem particularly interested in reading this whole thread where some of NASA’s contributions to science have been listed. None of us, have even bothered to mention NASA’s research into civil aviation. It’s detailed here.
**

Why on earth should I or anyone else be concerned about non-tax monies wasted on space? I couldn’t be less concerned with what other nations and private organizations spend on their space efforts.

I don’t have to prove anything about those other programs, Tucker. The simple fact is that money NOT spent on NASA could have been returned to the national economy by simply lowering taxes. I for one wouldn’t mind an extra couple hundred bucks in my pocket every year rather than seeing NASA piss it away on science freaks’ wet dream projects that don’t result in any concrete benefits.**

Except, of course, it wouldn’t be a couple hundred extra bucks in your pocket, more like $42. The Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate for the past couple of elections has had the slogan, “Would you be willing to give up your favorite Federal program if you never had to pay taxes again?” The answer, so far, has been a resounding “No!” on the part of the American populace. And if you honestly think that shutting down NASA would lower your taxes, you really don’t understand how government works.

**
Oh…so “may pay off” is an adequate rationale for pissing away this amount of money? If you run the numbers, it would have been better for the government to spend $20 billion/year on lottery tickets! Your logic just defies logic - because apparently to you there is no amount which could be considered too much to spend on the program. I for one am fascinated that you seem not to care in the slightest how little benefit is obtained for the vast sums of our nation’s wealth the space program has pissed away over the years. And comparing it to other, REAL national issues? That’s just ridiculous - truly a mark of desperation IMHO.**

So I’m desperate for pointing out that things like the War on Drugs, the War on Cancer, and the War on Poverty have produced negligable results? But it’s perfectly rational for you to question NASA’s usefulness? I fail to grasp your logic. It seems to me that all Federal expenditures should be questioned equally. After all, I’d be much happier if the Federal government reversed it’s position on the Drug War, legalized the stuff and taxed it. All the revenue from the taxes could be dumped into treatment programs or any other government program, as far as I’m concerned. Be better than the system we have now.

**

I promise you that neither you, nor I, nor our great great great great grandchildren will live to see a day when any human being may freely traverse from the earth to any other celestial body. As Clint Eastwood once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I suggest you consider the practical limitations which would tend to make your fantasy untenable. **

I, will claim no predictive powers as to what the future may hold. I’m barely into my third decade, and when I was a child, I couldn’t imagine a time when computers were common, or lasers were cheap enough for anyone to own, and yet they both are. For me to attempt to predict what the future may hold would just be foolish.

[I_Brian]

Eddie

The simple fact is that money NOT spent on NASA could have been returned to the national economy by simply lowering taxes.

Let’s face it, if it wasn’t “wasted” on NASA you can sure as heck bet it would be wasted somewhere else.