The Space Program

[_g (imported)]

With due respect to Paolo and the others, except the jerk who thinks it is okay to let people starve or kill off the ones he doesn't like,

clip....

You shouldn't call anyone a jerk.....

Frist, there is too much give aways.... the social programs are 3/4 or more of the buget. A fat ass that does not want to work at any job SHOULD starve. ( not the disabled or mental cases )

Second why should my tax dollars pay for the life sentance of a person thats keeps braking the law?

Most persons now days are to far removed from the food chain, and do NOT know that Nature is unforgiving. We just had two hikers that go them selfs killed they found the one in the coast range, but they will have to wait for the snow to melt on Mt Hood to find the second person that is if he did not use it to disappear....

_g

[yankee masha (imported)]

I guess there is someone who can follow what you're talking about but I'm not one of them. If you don't want to be called a jerk, the solution is simple: don't talk like one. I notice you calling people fat asses and wanting them to starve in the streets.

And they aren't just YOUR tax dollars. Are you singlehandedly supporting the welfare system? Last time I looked MY tax dollars were being spent on a war i don't like. And the new laws about welfare require that people on it work and make a serious effort to become self sufficient.

And it isn't always laziness that puts people out of work, it is the economy and corporate raiding and cutting jobs instead of cutting CEO bonuses and salaries.

[_g (imported)]

I guess there is someone who can follow what you're talking about but I'm not one of them. If you don't want to be called a jerk, the solution is simple: don't talk like one. I notice you calling people fat asses and wanting them to starve in the streets.

Well my spelling isn't that good. But YOU did not get the point..... And did I call you a FAT ASS?

There are some that just have babies to stay one Welfare, I had a niebor lady like that but the state finally forced her to get fixed (which I though was wrong ((both))). But my point is Most persons on welfare that I know DO NOT take any responsably for there life the " STATE " will take care of me. Most need a attude adjustment.

I'm all for the welfare money good to traning programs and day care programs so that the ones that want to work can. The ones that medically can't work I have no problems with. The ones that DO NOT want to work are the FAT ASS and I have no problem with them going hungy.

And they aren't just YOUR tax dollars. Are you singlehandedly supporting the welfare system? Last time I looked MY tax dollars were being spent on a war i don't like. And the new laws about welfare require that people on it work and make a serious effort to become self sufficient.

[/B]

Each one of us has there own view. Personally war is hell. But there are times it is nessasary. But I'm not calling you a jerk.

And it isn't always laziness that puts people out of work, it is the economy and corporate raiding and cutting jobs instead of cutting CEO bonuses and salaries.

[/B]

That is caused by the greed of the wall street gang. Wanting short term return not long term. Until the stock holders vote out the greedy CEOs it's not going to change.

_g

[jab (imported)]

I would agree with Paolo if we could guarantee that money taken from a dubious program would really be spent on humanitarian needs like food and shelter and disease prevention.

But it's not.

The argument Paolo is making is similar to the one that goes like this: <i>it's irresponsible to spend $NNNN to provide better medical care for your cat than the average homeless person gets in this country.</i>

Such arguments ignore the reality, that <i>if you don't spend it on your cat's health, you probably won't kick that same money toward homeless programs.</i>

Do you really believe that money taken from NASA would go to feed and house people?

The benefits of NASA are not indirect. The advances in science, including manufacturing, computers, and medicine, have undoubtedly made many things possible that weren't conceivable a half-century ago. Advanced warnings of weather conditions have saved countless lives; the computer work that's led to the understanding of the human genome will result in diseases being dealt with much more quickly than before.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Short-term, you're right. People are starving across much of the planet.

But Jesus put it best: you'll always have the poor. Choice where you put the resources.

Sorry to invoke and twist his words, slightly, but the point he made isn't stretched too much herein: take the money given to NASA, and invest it elsewhere, and I believe that long-term *and* short-term, you'll have less to show for it.

That said, NASA really needs to get out of this cover-your-ass mode and actually stop chasing politics and get back to research/development.

[SplitDik (imported)]

At some level we need to continue space programs until we have permanent colonies elsewhere than Earth. This is from the point of view of protecting humanity from Earth-wide castastrophies such as large meteor impacts etc.

Now there are also lots of catastrophes which we need to try to prevent with non-space investment. World hunger, environmental impact, global-nuclear war, biotechnology mistakes, etc.

Also, I wouldn't put my money on NASA alone. They are severely limited in their approaches to solving space flight. This often happens in technology -- it is sometimes better to start again from scratch rather than continuing to upgrade older stuff. There are actually a number of exciting private ventures looking at re-energizing space exploration. See http://www.msnbc.com/news/904842.asp?0dm=N16LT.

Of course, space flight will always be dangerous and expensive. So for the average person, investment in space exploration will help little in the things that matter (health, environment, etc.). For example, if a meteor was about to crash into Earth what are the chances of any of us individually getting to escape to Mars? It will be a priviledged thing for a long time to come ...

Space flight is not and will likely never be very safe. The reliability of any machine is related to its complexity -- the more complex, the less reliable. Furthermore, any failure is likely to have fatal consequences. It is very likely that there will be a Columbia/Challenger type disaster every 10 years or so.

Overall, I would personally prefer that we concentrated on making Earth a great place to stay, rather than trying to figure out a way to leave it. Only in order to stave off uncontrollable natural disasters do I support large government investment in space exploration.