🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.011735.16300@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>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.
>
>			........................
>
>>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.
>
>Your argument is extremely similar to that of Marx that innovation will
>be made when it should be by governments.  Right now the government has
>an essential monopoly on space activities, and has also obtained almost
>this position in many branches of scientific research.  THIS is the 
>problem; as Lee Iacocca stated, "In this business, you lead, follow,
>or get out of the way."  Governments have amply shown that they cannot
>lead or follow.  And unfortunately, they refuse to get out of the way.
>
>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.
>-- 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399

Ah, but the real question is not, "should research be done?", but "how
much?" and "to what end?" and "who pays?".  

We do get long-term benefits from exploration and research.
We cannot predict all of those benefits.

But would anyone care to provide $10E9 for flat-earth studies?  I
believe that we need to discriminate.