From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.155019.28754@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec29.011735.16300@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>
>>>> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
>>>> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
>>>> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
>>>> easily argued against using the same historical
>>>> information. Can I prove my assertion?
>>>> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.

  			........................


>>Your argument is extremely similar to that of Marx that innovation will
>>be made when it should be by governments.  Right now the government has
>>an essential monopoly on space activities, and has also obtained almost
>>this position in many branches of scientific research.  THIS is the 
>>problem; as Lee Iacocca stated, "In this business, you lead, follow,
>>or get out of the way."  Governments have amply shown that they cannot
>>lead or follow.  And unfortunately, they refuse to get out of the way.

>>Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
>>only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
>>by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
>>Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
>>Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
>>oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.



>Ah, but the real question is not, "should research be done?", but "how
>much?" and "to what end?" and "who pays?".  

>We do get long-term benefits from exploration and research.
>We cannot predict all of those benefits.

>But would anyone care to provide $10E9 for flat-earth studies?  I
>believe that we need to discriminate.

Let those who want to support research decide.  But get the governments
out of the way, including out of levying taxes on money going to research.
If the government was not involved in the business of vainly trying to 
manage charity, which it does in such a way as to make it financially
advantageous for at least many of those on welfare to do nothing about
the problem, and in the business of keeping our children very poorly
educated, and in general making it expensive to do anything of which
the government diasapproves, there would be the money for space activities.

There are those who have stated that they could put a base on the moon for
$10E10.  Somehow I doubt that the government could do it for 10, or maybe
even 100, times that.  But they cannot do it if the government multiplies
the price by 10 by requiring zillions of reports and studies.

If the government wants to encourage research, at least let all money donated
for that purpose be tax deductible.  There are major caps now; we are not in
the very high income group, but have already run into it, with no great amount
of itemized deductions.  But I see no hope of this country, or any other of
the present major countries, allowing human endeavor to flourish.  The only
hope of mankind is that we get out in space in enough numbers to found a 
true space society.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space