I cannot count the times I have had to explain some clueless fool that money spent by NASA is not put in the rocket and blasted into space. It is spent right here on earth, providing jobs and as you stated, a very good return on investment in terms of the discoveries and inventions.
My only objection to space exploration is I am afraid they'll put cities and suburbs on the moon someday and destroy its beauty, and commercial interests like mining and petrochemical companies will pollute space the same way they have earth. Put rules in place before that happens would make me a happy camper. On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Exactly and report after report has shown that for every dollar spent > on NASA there's been a $10 to $20 return. If all one can see are the > dollar signs involved, you have to admit that's a pretty good return > on investment. > > On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Well, the new Hubble is already under construction. This would be an >> unplanned addition. The NASA folks said if they got both, they could >> use one to look at wide area views of the universe and the other to >> really zoom in on something interesting when they find it. I believe >> the term ideal was tossed about. This is in addition to different >> detection capabilities that weren't designed into the current and >> replacement Hubbles. >> >> We already have one replacement Hubble for 8.8 billion. Why not add an >> entirely different system that can work in tandem with it for only 1.3 >> billion more? >> >> That seems like a pretty good deal to me. The money can come from >> striking 6 of those stupid JSFs from the order of over 2,000 expected to >> be placed. The upkeep on those planes is estimated to cost well over 1 >> trillion dollars over their operational lifetime. The fewer we have, >> the better. 6 planes means nothing to the military, who only wants them >> because they are cool new toys anyway. They would just have to make do >> with those old PoS F-22s. Just one extra space telescope would mean the >> world to NASA researchers. We don't even know the full contents of the >> solar system yet. It is sad. >> >> On 6/9/2012 6:23 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >>> >>> Dana you may think its OK for us to permanently live with cranial >>> recto-inversion I do not. The possibilities of two nearly identical >>> satellites operating at the same time opens the possibility for >>> instance of a system with an aperture the size of the earth >>> effectively. We've been good at detecting extremely large exo planets. >>> This system would increase the resolution to detect objects the size >>> of asteroids or smaller. It would be like having a new Hubble system, >>> even more modern. >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351864 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
