🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
> easily argued against using the same historical
> information. Can I prove my assertion?
> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.


Let me try this again: your historical argument is just bullshit.  The
reasoning is vacuous, independent of the truth of the conclusion.
There are too many differences between then and now to accept the
argument as anything more than sloganeering.  For example: (1) the
vessels they used to explore were straightforward extensions of known
technology, (2) the lands explored did not involve significant
differences in technology in order to survive [those that did, like
the high Artic, were left largely alone for centuries], (3) the
resources they found could be exploited at low cost and yet returned
benefits large in proportion to the size of their economies.  These
conditions don't appear to apply to space.

The track record so far in space is that some limited automated
applications are useful, or profitable (comsats are profitable, at
least for the moment; the others are government-run, so we don't know
if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
to the moon and found... very little of practical value.  Space
manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.
Microgravity research?  Impartial scientific review says it isn't
worth much.

You advance the straw man argument that I am arguing that there will
never be any benefits.  As you say, we can't know that.  But lack of
certainty doesn't mean we are absolved from the need to make decisions
on how scarce funds are expended.  You can't just say "you can't prove
me wrong, so gimme."  At least, not with a straight face.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu