[Kamendoriks]

I think it's probably obvious that I'm not a Libertarian, at least not in the same sense that Berzerker, for example, is.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're not a libertarian at all, and are in fact just a completely intellectually dishonest person.

[Edwardthe_third]

KH, if you believe that scientific advancement is a benefit, then the space program has by definition been beneficial. Layer onto the fact that our knowledge of the universe has been immeasurably advanced with the numerous practical technological advances, and I don't see how you can serious argue that the space program has not been beneficial.

Are you for real? Is this supposed to be an actual justification? It works equally well for all other government spending.



"If you believe that education is..."
"If you believe that health care is..."

[zabiqapara]

DF's arguments so far:

1) We waste other money too, so wasting money on space is okay...in fact, not just okay, but extremely desirable

2) Look! Here's a list of some stuff that's been spun off from the space program. Therefore, the money we spent was justified

3) Science, *****es! SCIENCE!!!!!!

[etdgxcnc]

We are inhibited in doing interesting things in space because of the prohibitively expensive way that we run our space program. There is no law of physics that says that space programs are to be so expensive.

The money that we spend is about 1/3rd to 1/4th as efficient as the Soviet space program. Just think about what that means. And weep. The only way that we won the space race is by spending the Soviets under -- basically, the gov't spending money on worthless stuff instead of taxpayers spending money on what they think is worthwhile.

Spending $x billion on big rockets run by the gov't will not change the system. Instead of creating this massive Apollo Program Mark II, we should spend our time and resources fostering a sustainable commercial ecosystem that eventually will get us to Mars. NASA can play a part in this regard, but the commercial players need to step up. We shouldn't be looking at NASA to lead on this.

It's hard to turn away from a command-and-control program with necessarily clear goals and set timelines. This difficulty has been playing out for 2 or 3 decades.

[Necedofer]

David, perhaps you should go play with the other kindergarten children.

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Except that you are making an assumption; that being, people in prison for victimless crimes would have committed crimes later.

That's not an assumption; that's cold, hard fact. People convicted for drug offences have higher rates of criminality in other spheres.

[alicewong]

Try again, KH. Putting men on the Moon - ahead of the Soviets - was the goal of the Apollo Program. It met the goal it set out to achieve, therefore the Apollo Program was a success.

Unlike, say, the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, federal education and health care spending, and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - of those MASSIVE outlays of government spending, only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically enough receive the most opposition to anything we are discussing, have achieved any measure of success.

Well, say I'm a congressman. I have an objective: "I wanna get me a blowjob." To meet this objective, I spend ten thousand dollars of taxpayer money to buy hookers, intending to get about ten really nice blowjobs out of it from as many different women. Instead, all of the hookers give me an extra job for paying so well, plus half of them offer to give me conventional sex at no extra charge. I have more than doubled my stated goals using a relatively small amount of money. Would you say I am a greater statesman than all the U.S. Presidents combined, or just greater than any single one?

[deethythitoth]

The US should be able to own the moon. If you do that, then there will be tons of incentive to return and make moonbases.

Seriously, we could export all the manufacturing out there and strip mine the hell out of the moon for millenia.

Yes, yes we could. Just as soon as the cost of whatever metals are available on the moon rises above the cost of launching a multi-ton rocket into orbit, building a mining facility on the moon, and hauling all that crap back to earth. Repeatedly.

[Greapyjeory]

I thought most people knew I had changed my views on some things. Then again, most of my posting over the past couple of years has just been trolling for my own amusement, so I can understand the confusion

Have you even posted in the last couple of years?

You can't disappear, show up again and then expect that people know that you've changed your mind on certain things.

[Rategbee]

My main point, though, is that if we choose to ignore space entirely, we are doing ourselves a great disservice.

I would not ignore space if NASA went away. Neither would you. Neither would any number of people.

So what's the problem? Why do you believe that we should always suck at Uncle Sam's nipple?

[stadiaKab]

Obama is NOT proposing an alternative to NASA. He - and let's face it, both sides of the political spectrum - are largely ignoring space altogether.

Did you even read what Dan said?

[boizzones]

Yes, yes we could. Just as soon as the cost of whatever metals are available on the moon rises above the cost of launching a multi-ton rocket into orbit, building a mining facility on the moon, and hauling all that crap back to earth. Repeatedly. Far easier to send it back than to send it up. Most of that is sunk cost.