🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

> Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
> only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
> by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
> Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
> Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
> oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.


A masterful example of doublespeak.  Bleah.

Listen, astronomers don't have any right to a blank check of the
treasury.  Nor do space fans, or aerospace companies.  And questioning
government priorities is not the same as proposing that people be
prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

Astronomy, in the absence of government funds, would be supported by
private funds, as it was before the government horned in.  Comparing
the cost/scientific benefit of Keck vs. HST, this would, I think, not
be a bad idea.  No doubt funding would be lower, and no doubt Herman
thinks this is an incredibly bad thing, with no further reasoning
necessary.

This doesn't belong in sci.space, so I've directed followups
to talk.politics.space.

	Paul