Fangorn,
I appreciate your input.
As far as the space station and shuttle is concerned I'm not technically literate in this field. It was my intent to confine most of my criticisms of the Bush initiative towards the social and financial impact. I regret to hear that in your view the space station is poorly planned. If you're correct I can only conclude that political considerations prevailed over good science. Pity really, the two should should go hand in hand. Possibly, this is a good reason to be skeptical of other international space initiatives.
Your example of Kennedy's decision to go to the moon is a appropro to the current debate, but I don't think Jefferson's decision to acquire the Louisiana Purchase territory is. This was territory that abutted the United States. Territory that Jefferson knew would ultimately be developed for useful social and economic purposes of the people of the United States. Going to the moon, much less Mars is simply not the same thing. It's difficult to perceive any tangible economic benefit. The only thing the U.S. gets in return is some prestige and possible insights into the formation of Mars and the Solar System. Let's use robots for this.
I would argue that going to the moon in 1969 was a bit different. It had never been done before. We were in the middle of the cold war with the Russians (and China, Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, etc.). We still had the Sputnik scare mentality and the moon missions helped to spur some technological innovations. Space travel in general was still new and there was much experience that needed to be acquired.
Going back to the Moon a second time doesn't make much sense to me...not at this time anyway. Communism is finished. We have our Moon rocks. If there is anything of consequence that we still need to know about the Moon then by all means send the bots. I know there are some legitimate scientific projects that can be performed on the Moon, but again at what cost?
If the U.S. wants useful technological innovation then how about a reusable space craft that can take off and land like a regular airplane? How about bolstering research on a fusion reactor, or manufacturing a room temperature superconductor? Items like these, if successfully developed, would have practical economic benefits for our country and the world.
I very much want to see our country advance scientifically and technologically, but in a manner that will pay us dividends, not in a manner that will cost us the farm.
If there is anybody here on this thread that would like to advance the argument that Bush's initiative would encourage technology, science and the economy I'd really like to hear it. |
