Well, as I've stated before, there is a third alternative to public
financing for private gain or private financing for private financial
gain. I see a real alternative as a "Mayflower" approach to space
colonization. I think those who have the drive and desire to make
something out of nothing and to have a piece of land which they can truly
call their own will increasingly look to our nearby planetary neighbors as
realistic alternatives, especially as NASA and limited private research
begins to bring the cost down.
As for the missile defense shield, I am in favor of it for a couple
of reasons, but one of which is the same reason I like seeing a lot of
money thrown at NASA: government money spent on R&D of any type tends to
have private-sector payoffs, and although as a libertarian I disagree with
the government spending any of our money without our consent, I see
advancement of technology as one of the better things Uncle Sam can be
throwing our money away on.
-Nathan Schomer.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Thomas Green wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not holding my breath for privitazation of space exporation. Aside
> from thrill rides to the moon and possibly "patenting" genomes of europan slime,
> there's not a lot of hope for profit making ventures until launch costs come WAY
> down. The purist in me would also hate having to purchase pictures of Pluto, or
> missions decided purely on profit motives alone. I like the idea that
> information about our universe is public domain. I'm not saying I'm an
> anti-capitalist, but pure science is best researched without tainting it further
> with profits (or political agendas).
>
> I happen to think Goldin's statement is fairly honest; they could do better, but
> they do well on what they set out for. For example, NASA does contract out the
> building of space craft to private industry and coordinates with universities to
> process and store the mission data. They ask private industry to propose
> missions to meet their objectives. So in a sense, they are acting as mission
> managers and delegating where possible. It's not immediately clear to me how
> this can be improved upon. Any suggestions?
>
> Sure NASA is not perfect, but maybe if our goal is to trim government waste, we
> should compare NASA with other forms of government spending and its associated
> return. My current favorites are the Kenneth Starr style of "investigation" and
> the new missile defense initiative.
>
> An alternative would be to compare NASA's effectiveness to other national space
> programs: NASDA, ESA, and Russia.
>
> I honestly have no idea of the facts, but my hunch is NASA is not a mismanaged
> institution by a long shot, considering they rank very high up there on the list
> of major accomplishments.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> Bruce Moomaw wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gail & Roberta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: Mr. Modesty strikes again
> >
> > >
> > >No, I won't "start up" because you're exactly right, Bruce. I've seen
> > >several articles lately that recall the early days of the "space race" when
> > >money (government money, that is) was no object and some are still in that
> > >mode of thinking. That said, I wonder what we on the Europa discussion site
> > >can do to change that kind of thinking. I believe I have expressed my
> > >opinion that private industry is the only way to go from here, and that we
> > >should encourage space tourism as one element--just one element, mind you,
> > >not the whole enchilada. Maybe NASA
> > >should be the coordinator of projects for space exploration instead of the
> > >prime executor. They could at least encourage private experimenters instead
> > >of considering them as unwanted competition. Or maybe competition is what
> > is
> > >needed. I don't have the answers; maybe together we could come up with some
> > >practical, workable, and influential plans.
> > >In the meantime,
> > >Watch the skies!
> >
> > Okey-doke; this is exactly in mesh with my own line of thinking (except that
> > I have very serious doubts about space tourism with present technology).
> > Sorry about the earlier rather snide comment on my part; but I will repeat
> > that uncritical enthusiasm about something as expensive as space exploration
> > is precisely the sort of thing that has always gotten it in trouble. To
> > make it work at all, we have to be critical as hell about the means in order
> > to have any hope of achieving the ends. (The Bush Administration, I gather,
> > is still beating the bushes trying to find ANYONE new who's willing to try
> > to grapple with the mess that the civilian space program has become at this
> > point.)
>
> ==
> You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
>
>
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
