🚀 go-pugleaf

msteele@freenet.niagara.com (Mike Steele) writes:

>	15th century explorers of the Atlantic certainly cannot be 
>compared to the space explorers of today.  Unlike the Cabots and 
>Columbus', we already have a good idea what out there, and we also know 
>it going to take WAY TOO LONG (at the present moment) to reach a feasible 
>destinatinations. The years exploring space just can't be compared to the 
>months it took to cross the Atlantic.
   
     Sure it can.   The moon only takes 3 days, and mars can be reached
     in 7 months using current technologies.

>: >    Space exploration and development at a modest scale will have little
>: >    or no impact on our national debt and our decaying social structure.
>: >    If anything, it would probably help improve Canada's situation.

>	Oh, come on now!  How can it help Canada's situation?  Let see 
>some facts, some sort of study!  All I can see is a programme to eat at 
>our debt (anything that wastes the nation's money affects the debt.  
>That's what the debt is), with NO ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL GAIN/BENEFITS for 
>years to come.  With no gain, it certainly can't help the Canada's 
>situation (and please don't explaing to me how a moon rock will solve the 
>welfar problem).

    The average Canadian spends about a seventh of his American counter
    part on space exploration and development, and the average American
    spends about $50 a year on space; this is less than 0.5 % of the
    budget.  At the very least, every dollar spent generates a dollar,
    so the program/investment is not a money sink.

    Compare this with money spent on welfare, UI, excessive health care,
    plus a few other things.

    Space exploration and development is a social and economic gain.


>	I almost forgot, our social structure is decaying BECAUSE there 
>is no money left in the kitty.  The social safety net is based on a 
>surplus of funds, which we don't have, and which a space programme won't 
>help.
    
      Judicious investment of funds and cutting out wasteful spending
      will get rid of the deficit and pay off the debt.  

>: >    The only argument people need to go to space is the same one
>: >    used for any explorer / adventurer:  Because it's there.

>	I agree.  It is there, but it is too expensive to bring here.
        
	It really isn't too expensive.  30 million Canadians have
	enough wealth they can pool together to some impressive
	things, provided that they remain committed to it.

>: >    If you think otherwise, you may as well pack everything up and
>: >    go home.  

>	I do think otherwise.  Lack of funding to a space programme will 
>not hurt my position, nor any one else's, with the exception of people 
>working insuch an industry.  I don't mean SPAR, either.  I mean 
>government agencies.
      
      Sure, you can look at it that way if you want.  From a broader
      perspective, I think I am still correct.  Maybe it's difficult
      for certain people to think multi-dimensionally.


      Blair

>> : >    People have a simple choice:  move forward, or backward.  : >
>: >    I'd rather move forward.

>	I'd like to move forward, but if we try to right now, we will 
>actually move one step forward and two steps back.  Face it, Canada is 
>broke.
>: -> Dmitry Nekrasovski    
>: ->
>: -> sdecont2@bnr.ca

>(I apologize for being hot-headed.  I just LOVE to argue...  No hard 
>feeling, eh?)

>-- 
>Mike Steele			| St. Catharines -- Canada's Canal City
>msteele@freenet.niagara.com	|              Go Leafs!