🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 1305@cs.rochester.edu, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.152258.23834@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <1992Dec27.205945.25241@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
>>dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>
>
>The differences between the age of exploration and today are
>considerable.  The raw mineral and agricultural products (and slaves)
>that profited the explorers of that age are a much smaller fraction of
>GDPs today.
>
>More generally, arguments by analogy are essentially circular.  You
>have to assume that the analogy is valid to believe the argument.  I
>don't see any reason to do that here.  There are contrary analogies:
>for example, exploration of Antarctica has been of little practical
>benefit to the exploring countries (although it has been of scientific
>benefit to humanity as a whole).
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu


It seems that a reasonable justification for space exploration is simply that.
It is there.  Your analogy of Antarctica is very relevant.  Although it has not
been a great financial success, it has been of scientific benefit.

By that same argument exploration of space could give us the same scientific benifit.

Similarly, exploration of the deep seas is of little economic benifit, but scientifically it allows us to learn more about our planet.

So.  The original question was should we spend tax-payer money to explore space.  I 
think paul has given us the answer.  That answer is yes.  We can spend taxpayer money
to explore for scientific research.  However, taxpayer money should not be spent
to help to government extract economic advantages from space.  (which is reasonable,
that is what private industry is supposed to do).

Perhaps we should form a government agency that is responsible for the development
and exploration of the scientific aspects of space.  Gasp, Could that be NASA?
But aren't they a commercial satellite launch company?  

In all seriousness, it does seem that NASA has strayed a little from what their
charter was originally intended to provide.  Perhaps a manned space station is a 
good thing to have, but its sole purpose should be technical innovation and research
and development.  Not Economic development.

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-mail: kirby.roch803@xerox.com