🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>
>>szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>>>Come again?  We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's
>>>more expensive?  
>>
[stuff about how manned space exploration is important]
>Anybody who thinks we have an infinite budget to work with, please make
>yourself known so that I know where not to invest my hard-earned money.
>It's not a question of "believing" in anything, since presumably we are not
>discussing religion.  It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and
	    ^^^^^^^^
I take it as a religious principle that a permanent staffed presence
in space is the principle goal.
>unmanned programs.  What allocation is best for our future?   Spending all
>or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere 
>but LEO, is the poorest allocation.   Sending out a few probes, while
>still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor.
>The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects
>(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable,
>and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the
>budget X which the government provides.
If manned exploration is done, then no research will be done on manned
exploration technology, and as a consequence it will never be
developed and become cheaper.  Deferring manned space exploration now
because it is too expensive recursively results in never doing any
manned space exploration at all.
>Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu

Crispin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Login name:	sccowan			In real life: S. Crispin Cowan
Post Awful:	280 Phillip St., Apt. B1-15 Waterloo, N2L 3X1
USENET:		watmath!violet!sccowan	or	sccowan@violet.waterloo.edu

"Burger Thing:  Because Man is the _warmest_ place to hide."
				-Rob Fennalon