From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:35:46 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <C03nLM.Fup@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
: >This is an utterly emotional argument that disregards the most obvious.
: >Space is not any kind of frontier.  It has been explored
: 
: It has? I'm glad to know that I can stop working because
: absolutely everything about space is known already....   :-/
: 

Comparing space to the New World is utter nonsense.  There was already
life in the new world as soon as we "discovered" that it was here.  Trees
and people and animals and water and oxygen.  The technology required
to get there did not need to be invented.

: >and what we know
: >is that it is not inhabited by life,
: 
: Untrue. Space is big and we have no proof either way as yet.

Even if there is life 300 million light years away, it is of ZERO significance.
All of space is big, but the fraction of it that can be explored from space
is puny and costly.  Ever hear of Bang for your Buck?  We get NO bang from
sending humans at many bucks.

: 
: >uninhabitable by humans without adding
: >extraordinary cost to the proposition,
: 
: The operative words here are "at present".

The operative words are "at present, it is too costly and of little
value."

: 
: >and incredibly finite due to our
: >technical inability to go very far.
: 
: See operative words above....
: 

See operative words above... wonderful.

: >Exploration of space requires a huge
: >amount of costly technology,
: 
: Same operative words.... I'm beginning to see a pattern here....

Yeah, you have nothing to say, other than "at present" I am right.

: 
: >while exploration of the new world was possible
: >using existing technology - sailing ships, canoes, backpacks, sleeping
: bags,
: >and rifles.
: 
: Here's a clue Mike: Rockets ARE existing technology. Here's another
: clue: Arguements like yours are inherently flawed because they assume
: no advances in technology. Do you really think that the shuttle is the
: be all/end all of all space transportation systems? There are
: development programs as we speak to make access to space routine
: and two orders of magnitude cheaper. If it were 100 years earlier, you
: would probably be spewing similar flawed arguements pertaining to
: pracical human flight.
: 

I assume many many advances in technology.  Just done on earth, and done
cheaply.  You keep using this "2 orders of magnitude cheaper" bullshit
argument.  Well, sending 100x less humans into space on top of your two
orders of magnitude is even better.  And your emotional and sentimental
argument about what your closed little mind concludes about what I would
or wouldn't do 100 years ago is absurd.

: >
: >That said, I repeat that unmanned space exploration makes a lot of sense,
: >is much cheaper, gets a lot more bang to the buck, allows us to look at
: >weather patterns, gather intelligence data, look out into space from
: beyond
: >the atmosphere, build maps of entire planets, and so on.
: 
: And robots still can't accomplish a small fraction of the tasks of a human
: being. Robot spacecraft are not as flexible, do not adapt well, have
: trouble
: fixing themselves (Galileo, HST), .... Robots have to come a hell of alot
: farther
: technologically before they can match a human being. Admittedly, they
: have provided us with a spectacular amount of data, but according to many
: scientists I have talked to, this data is a teaser and they would have
: loved
: to have supplemented it on the fly when a significant
: phenomenon was observed but were unable to do so
: because the programming is difficult to alter.
:  

Figuring out how to program something "on the fly," as you put it, is a
PERFECT example of the work we can do on Earth at a fraction of the 100x
cheaper cost that you cling to.  And no matter what the cost of Galileo,
HST, or whatever failures you want to bring up, all you are arguing is that
even non-manned space flight may be too costly.

And no matter what your scientific friends say, it is simple propaganda.
With unmanned space flight, we proved your friends wrong about the planetary
conditions on Venus, found water on moons, found the first active volcanoes
(not on earth) in the solar system, got to see almost every planet and moon
in the solar system up close...

: >
: >I also repeat that Star Trek is a fantasy.  We have no ability to travel 
: >at 9x the speed of light, and all scientific evidence is that it is
: simply
: >impossible.
: 
: I am a Relativist and I don't make statements
: like this because it is foolish to do so.
: 

I'll wait until Einstein is proven wrong.  Or are you going to suggest that
science isn't as suitable a replacement for God as a fundamentalist would
claim?  I'm no fundamentalist, but I am a realist.  Prove it first, then
we spend the money.

: >
: >: Also, there will be poor always.  I see no reason why we must
: subordinate our
: >: need to achieve human excellence or our scientific curiousity to the
: plight
: >: of the poor.  First of all, utopianism is unrealistic (curing poverty)
: and,
: >: secondly, we have a right (and a duty to our children) to make our
: society
: >: succede.
: >: 
: >
: >This is incredibly pessimistic.  Poor is a relative term, and the
: quality of
: >life for the "poor" is clearly something we can and have been
: continuously
: >are improving...
: 
: Have you seen Somalia or Bangla Desh lately? Improving....  :-/
: 
: We will have much better luck achieving  a healthy, growing,
: dynamic society and eliminating poverty if we stop being
: a bunch of panty-waists, hording
: our precious pennies while our world collapses around us. To
: achieve this, we need to push the scientific and
: technical envelope....to challenge ourselves....to make sacrifices in
: order
: to meet ambitious goals. Space exploration and exploitation is the most
: promising frontier to direct our efforts in this regard. This society
: became great because the dreamers ignored the naysayers like
: yourself and pushed on. You may be happy making incremental
: improvements to existing technology, playing leap frog with
: our foreign competitors, watching sitcoms while we decline as
: a nation, but I am not.
: 


I've seen somalia, and it is improving.  To quote Bush (paraphrased)
"we must look outward, not inward."  He was talking about improving the
world, not looking into space.  What do you think the "New World Order"
means?  To me, it means treating the Somalians and (whatever you call
a person from Bangla Desh) as if we were all part of the same World
community instead of hording our pennies as you put it.  To let a poor
person from one of those two countries (or many others) live as well
as our drug infested, tv watching, car driving, air conditioned, nintendo
playing "poor" is something we can indeed do - and likely long before
we might break the speed of light barrier (if possible).  In this sense,
the world should indeed be hording its pennies and making it possible to
deliver food, medecine, information, technology, goods, and even your
fantasy driven ideas anywhere in the world is where I'd put the money
NOW.

You accuse me of being happy with incremental improvements to existing
technology, while you are much moreso guilty of exactly that.  100x the
speed of point to point communications from any spot on the earth to
any other is a much bigger gain for humanity than a 100x cheaper space
access medium.  And YOU are the one who says we should look at space
investment as a % of GNP (or whatever).  Consider that cutting the %
by 100 and increasing GNP by 1000 makes your fantasy research budget
increase by 10x.  That's MY vision.

: "You will pay for your lack of vision"

We're paying dearly for your presence of "vision"

: 
: Norman
: 
: Dr. Norman J. LaFave
: Senior Engineer
: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
: 
: 
: 
: 
: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
:                                Hunter Thompson