From: blumb@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bill Blum)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Summary: Cut it out.
Keywords: Flame retardants are needed.
Organization: SEDS National Board Member
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 10:13:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.232911.17212@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <22DEC199214411374@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>
> > I will no longer debate you on this subject. You have your "opinions",
> > which is all your responses to date have been, and I have mine. You
> > work for your worldview and we will work for ours.
> >
> > You speak of quasi-religiousness when the exact same thing can be said
> > of your asserations.
>
>Oh, *please*.  I've posted numerous quantitative arguments in rebuttal
>to your claims.  I can even provide references for those numbers, if
>you'd like.

Oh *please*.

Both sides can drag quantitative arguments out of every nook and cranny of
every publication in existence until the rest of USENET dies at their
terminals.

Yes, I believe in space exploration.  I don'T subscribe to the belief that
it is absolutely necessary for survival...I do think that it serves a
purpose, and should be continued.

I believe that there are some amazing possibilities out there, beyond
Earth'S orbit.  
I've noticed that many people consider "dreaming" about such things and
working towards it with all we can bring to bear too overzealous.
May I remind some of the skeptics that the Internet itself was the product
of a bunch of people who's sole puropose was to ensure a network by which
NORAD could communicate.   Zealotry pays off in ways you can't imagine in
the short term.


> > I have work to do. I live in the real world. If you actually think
> > things are getting better from a world perspective then you are truly
> > blind. This is a simple fact, not a flame.
>
>By most objective measures, the world is getting better.  The world
>has never been, on average, wealthier, healthier, better fed, or
>better educated than it is today.  These are *facts*.  You can look up
>the numbers.  These trends have been going on for decades, in spite of
>the continuous (and continuously wrong) doomsaying.

Gee, Mr. Dietz.  Go to Somalia.  Talk with the people.  They would strongly
disagree with you about being better off.

It is a FACT that the future is uncertain.              
(_Introduction to Nuclear Engineering_, 2nd Edition, John Lamarsh)
-begin quote-
	Whether sufficient uranium will be available to fuel expanding
world nuclear capacity is an issue of continuing controversy even among
experts.  Uranium itself is not an especially rare element.  It is present
in the earth's crust at a concentration by weight of about four parts per
million, which makes uranium more abundant than such common substances as
silver, mercury, and iodine.  There are an estimated 10^14 tons of uranium
located at a depth of less than 12 or 13 miles, but most of this is at such
low concentrations it WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE RECOVERED, (boldface added by
me) 
-end quote-

Yes, Mr Dietz, there are abundant supplies of some materials on Earth.
But be nice to the zealots...they occassionally come up with some brillant
ideas which influence a lot of people.  Like the Internet.

Often, zealots lose sight of reality.  YEt just as often, skeptics lose
their clues.

Here's wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, and a Happy News Year, and
(insert any other holiday I missed here).

-- 
Bill Blum			* "God willing...we shall return."        
Purdue University		* Gene Cernan, The Moon, Dec 1972(BSEE P.U. 56)
School of Nuclear Engineering	* Member of the SEDS National Board
blumb@sage.cc.purdue.edu 	*        Ad Astra Per Ardua!!  
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space