Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Moon landing Hoax (spinoffs)

As a proportion of GDP, I understand we have a much lower debt than during and
some time after the WW II. And wow were we prosperous. (However, that might
be partially because everyone else was impoverished by the war.) Then and
largely now the debt was to ourselves. The danger may be if the debt is to
say Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. The only objection I have to the debt is it
assists in the transfer of wealth from me to the lenders i.e. the evil
capitalist class. The very great "up side" possible is if the debt is used as
investment, i.e. schools, mass transit, bio-med. research, etc. I have
forgotten the "figures", but I suspect in proportion to the respective
incomes, one's hugh mortgage (TD in Calif.) is more than the national debt.
Supposedly the govt. can pay it off in < 20 years -- most TD's are 30 year.

Women who spent more on cosmetics than the space program are using their own
money not my tax.

How much of the hoopla over the moon walk was beating the Soviets and not just
pure engineering marvel? Why did the space program die out so rapidly

I think it is a sin (I use this word with some thought being a devout atheist)
to spend billions while so many americans are (were) impoverished -- of course
why there are so many would involve us in a political discussion only
peripherally appropriate here if we are to observe the "rules" of the list.
narrowly defined.

Surely the cost, spin off ratio is very high. Would not a direct "attack" on
the "spin-offs" have yielded results less expensively and more rapidly?

I tend to agree on the SCSC, because so much money had been spent and it
probably would have been good money after good money --- moreover, it might
have reduced the defense budget -- always a good thing! I'm in favor of
nearly all science that isn't defense related, if it doesn't spend "social"
dollars. -- The major spin-off from the space program was military <I think>
and now it's the High Frontier, the militarization of space.

enuff. (for now)


P.s. Is there small science that can duplicate big SCSC?

P.p.s. Thorn, et al. dedicate their book to the taxed populace that made it

I think the surplus means income exceeds expenses. That's real. (I recently
heard, on a Radio program I trust ,the interest on our debt is 15% -- the
std. for housing is 30% of income (many spend much more, especially here in Si
Valley). Initially the TD payments are 99% interest -- another measure of the
degree of the national debt.

Jim Green wrote:

At 10:58 22 02 2001 , Tim wrote:
Fundamental scientific research doesn't need to have
practical spinoffs to make it worthwhile.

True, but doesn't that usually happen.
I don't do much "pure" research,
but it seems to me that on "big"
projects there have been a lot of spin-offs
that benefit a lot of people.

Yes, Tim, this is true and it is important to do fundamental research w/o
much of a practical goal. My position is that those who want to do
research in some area should _voluntarily_ get together and do the research
or collectively pay or it. Ok, for the sake of the country, lets coerce
some money out of the tax payers and give it to NSF or the like. This to
build a "reservoir" of knowledge so that further technological advancement
can benefit the entire nation or even the globe -- Yes it would be very
helpful to research a cure for the devastating AIDS problem -- especially
in Africa eg.

BUT to assert that the nation should take on projects the size of the SSC,
or a Moon trip, or the Hubble based on the idea that some scientific
knowledge will eventually spin off into a data reservoir and thereby
technology might eventually be enhanced this seems to me to be over
reaching -- projects of this size should be debated publicly and weighed
against other expensive projects and my favorite, pay down the damn federal

There _will_ be scientific gains -- yes there will, but the taxpayer should
have a vote as to whether s/he thinks those gains outweigh the value of
other uses for _his/her_ money. I resent it that the Congress seems to
think that the money it _theirs_ to spend as they wish. For one, Bush sees
that if the money is in Washington the money _will_ be spent -- despite the
rhetoric -- and likely spent in the state/county of the congressman with
the most influence -- a la the SSC!

And don't rebut with the idea of a surplus -- ie money the congress has
robbed from my wallet without asking -- there _is_ no surplus!! The nation
is in debt!!!

Jim Green