Article View: sci.space
Article #6530Re: Justification for the Space Program
From: Paul Dietz
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:42
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:42
20 lines
1419 bytes
1419 bytes
In article <1992Dec28.193940.10495@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes: > Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits, > which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable, > this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point. Since your reasoning seems inherently incapable of being disproved, even if wrong, I don't see that it has any value. Theories have to be falsifiable to be useful. In practice, you *will* have to argue that a project has specific benefits or it will not be funded (or, rather, you won't get funded for your *next* project, as with Apollo). You mention comsats, etc.: yes, but that has little to do with the Club of Rome/wild schemes of space resource exploitation that started this thread. Moreover, these benefits were not unpredicted: Clarke forecast geostationary communication relays in 1947. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec28.204243.7616@cs.rochester.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!dietzReferences:
<1992Dec28.152258.23834@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Dec28.193940.10495@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!dietz From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program Message-ID: <1992Dec28.204243.7616@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 28 Dec 92 20:42:43 GMT References: <1992Dec28.152258.23834@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Dec28.193940.10495@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Organization: University of Rochester Lines: 20