home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / sci / space / 18339 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-29  |  2.0 KB
  1. Xref: sparky sci.space:18339 talk.politics.space:1624
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!dsinc!ub!rutgers!rochester!dietz
  3. From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
  4. Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
  5. Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
  6. Message-ID: <1992Dec29.145537.9264@cs.rochester.edu>
  7. Date: 29 Dec 92 14:55:37 GMT
  8. References: <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Dec29.011735.16300@cs.rochester.edu> <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
  9. Followup-To: talk.politics.space
  10. Organization: University of Rochester
  11. Lines: 29
  12.  
  13. In article <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
  14.  
  15. > Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
  16. > only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
  17. > by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
  18. > Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
  19. > Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
  20. > oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.
  21.  
  22.  
  23. A masterful example of doublespeak.  Bleah.
  24.  
  25. Listen, astronomers don't have any right to a blank check of the
  26. treasury.  Nor do space fans, or aerospace companies.  And questioning
  27. government priorities is not the same as proposing that people be
  28. prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
  29. climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?
  30.  
  31. Astronomy, in the absence of government funds, would be supported by
  32. private funds, as it was before the government horned in.  Comparing
  33. the cost/scientific benefit of Keck vs. HST, this would, I think, not
  34. be a bad idea.  No doubt funding would be lower, and no doubt Herman
  35. thinks this is an incredibly bad thing, with no further reasoning
  36. necessary.
  37.  
  38. This doesn't belong in sci.space, so I've directed followups
  39. to talk.politics.space.
  40.  
  41.     Paul
  42.