One Proton rocket went up to build a space station. We're told it will cost $40,000,000,000. This could build 200,000 $200,000 homes to replace immobile shacks.

Since we are lied to this will be at least $80 billion plus interest. If you use $600 hammers then it will cost...

It's obvious that our priorities will have to be rearranged. Y2K will do this for us.

Until then, keep coughing up.

-- - (-@-.-), November 22, 1998

Answers

In the long run, say the next 5,000 years, if we are to survive as a species, we HAVE to get off this planet and colonize outward. Y2K is just the first hard bump on a long, long journey.

-- R. D..Herring (drherr@erols.com), November 22, 1998.

I take issue with the whole idea of anyone "deserving" the kind of problems that many of us preparers think may come about. It strikes me as a wish that is somewhat unevolved, and certainly about what I dislike about the world as it is...that anyone can sit in judgment of others, anyone but themselves,...and say...oh ya...boy...this one here deserves the suffering we all worry about associated with Y2K. What it is about the lack of maturity in human beings that gives them enjoyment in contemplating the sufferingof another living being?

I always thought I had been dropped by the stork on the wrong planet. Only a few rare people and events have proved me wrong over the last 46 years. I just never got into the whole "sit on the sidelines cheering for someone to get hit harder" routine.

Sheet-flapping....

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), November 22, 1998.

It may be more valuable than the pyramids.

Best purpose for a space station, or a super-collider, or anything else involving just "Science" (with a big S) rather than engineering (like fusion power or fuel cells or mining the asteroid belt) is the cultural lift and inspiration it requires - there must be a dream to improve and uplift people.

In this it is more like a Symphony or a national art Museum. Will this do more good than than the Colliseum, the Parthenon, or the Louve? It could be that important to following generations.

The dream is why people strive to do better. To do something more.

Or they sit in front of a TV set and breed intolerance, waste, laziness and more breeders.

To help the poor - they must decide to EARN it, not be given it. They need a way and a culture that shows them they must decide to work to improve themselves rather than demand a handout - forever. Changing their present way of life may be painful. It certainly will be harder than doing nothing, and demanding more.

Welfare - or donated housing - has always failed at doing anything but imprisoning the housed.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 22, 1998.

Robert- I completely agree with you.

In Sydney there is a 60% youth unemployment rate. This (I'm paraphrasing the biggest Syd. paper here) "is responsible for youth depression and unhappiness, the fact that no matter how hard they try they still cannot get a job".

I'm not especially good-looking and I've got no technical skills. Every time I've wanted a job -I've gone through about a dozen since I was first hired as a paperboy at age ten- I've been able to get one and be working within a week. And I've *never* worked at McDonalds.

If you want something, go out and get it. If you aren't prepared to do that, then I agree with Ayn Rand. You don't deserve to have the thing.

Giving the unemployed some way of earning their welfare -tedious work, long hours- is a good idea with me. They'll feel they've accomplished something. They've earned their money. But simply giving them houses- that'd accomplish more harm than good.

On the other hand, that rocket into space is a vital part of human history. I would not protest if the government pulled all money from welfare and the arts, and cut big holes in defence and roads, and put all that money into space and the future.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), November 22, 1998.

* Welfare - or donated housing - has always failed at doing anything but imprisoning the housed. *

Good point which has been proved many times. Also many people are taxed to death, and for nonesense programs. Excessive taxation creates malcontents and paupers... and a "vicious circle."

Why should someone who struggles to make a living pay taxes to enrich corp's. and guv's. while the nations schools buildins are falling apart, for example?

Our middle class is becoming an underclass and this will have serious consequenses.

-- - (-@-.-), November 22, 1998.

Just one point, Robert,...

***Changing their present way of life may be painful. It certainly will be harder than doing nothing, and demanding more. ***

I would put to you that it is much harder to do nothing...to be idle leads to a sense of worthlessness and hopelessness unparalleled in the pain it gives to human beings, emotionally...and the cost to sense of self.

Doing something is energizing, and leads to sense of accomplishment...of course, you probably already know this. :)

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), November 22, 1998.

Just ate potato(e) chips. They cost $2.00 for 5 oz.(minus one penny to give the illusion that they are cheaper than they really are)

I, as a farmer, some years get less that $2 for 100 lbs of potatoes and I take many risks to grow them. I have to pay for machinery, labor, fuel, fertilizer, etc.

I have been fighting a herd of lawyers for more than 10 years to defend my water rights going back to last century. And there is no end in sight.

110/2 = $0.50/lbs for me.

16/5 * $2 = $6.40/lbs in store.

Who is being ripped off by which invisible entities?

-- - (-@-.-), November 22, 1998.

That's what I won't miss. The middleman. I think we'll be better off after the fall.

-- Amy (leoneamy@aol.com), November 22, 1998.

Look around. All around.

Does outer space deserve us?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 22, 1998.

Deserve? No. Unknowingly created? Yes and No. Challenged to our core? Absolutely.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 22, 1998.

Sorry, folks but has anyone stoped to look at the payback on the space program?? Last time I checked, in spinoffs, the space program has paid BACK to US about $2.80 for each $1.00 spent. Building 200,000 houses will pay back exactly <$40,000,000,000>.

Next no-brainer??

Chuck

-- Chuck a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 22, 1998.

just to answer -'s original question here's an alternative example which some folks (including myself) consider to be one possible reason for the current situation:

Genesis Chapter 11 verses 1-9:

1Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. 3Then they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly. They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. 4And they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. 5But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6And the Lord said, Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech. 8So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. 9Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

just another perspective on the problem...

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), November 22, 1998.

"in the long run, say the next 5,000 years, if we are to survive as a species, we HAVE to get off this planet and colonize outward. Y2K is just the first hard bump on a long, long journey. "

According to some predictions, Y2K will level out the population so that we DONT'T need to colonize outerspace for a long time.

But I agree that the space program generated more than was put in, in terms of not only dollars, but knowledge and progression. Ludites might disagree, but I conter that it's only because we're too dumb as a species to handle what we create. Y2K could hopefully change that somewhat, if we learn from the mistakes of this current mess and pass messes. I think we deserve Y2K.

-- chris (catsy@pond.com), November 22, 1998.

Chris- I agree. We need forwards momentum. We need a goal. In war, there's a sense of national unity because the country is focussed on one goal: beating the enemy. Wouldn't it be great if we could create that unity WITHOUT killing each other? A world unity: Earth's mission to colonise other planets.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), November 22, 1998.

Oh we do, indeed we do. A global "housecleaning" so to speak. Perhaps we can then start over and do it right the second time? I certainly hope so. We as a species will learn from this one I hope. Don't know as I really believe that we will... Mom Nature has a way of righting wrongs, she just does it in her own sweet time. Y2k coupled with lots of other factors may be just the recipe for this stew we are in.

-- Bobbi (volfnat@northweb.com), November 23, 1998.

What connection does spending on the space program or any other Government program have with the y2k problem. Journalistic holism is confusing you.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 23, 1998.

* Sorry, folks but has anyone stoped to look at the payback on the space program?? Last time I checked, in spinoffs, the space program has paid BACK to US about $2.80 for each $1.00 spent. Building 200,000 houses will pay back exactly <$40,000,000,000>. Next no-brainer?? *

* What connection does spending on the space program or any other Government program have with the y2k problem. Journalistic holism is confusing you. *

Space program does NOT pay back to the poor slob worker-taxpayer. It takes his earnings and transfers it to wealthier parties. Poor slob isn't asked if he wants to use his earnings to upgrade his house, for example, or blow it into space to enrich others.

-- fly . (.@...), November 23, 1998.

Yes I'm not discussing whether the Gov. should spend money on housing or rockets, just on the relevance of your statement to y2k. My view would be that your govt should reduce the space program and taxes by the same amount. But I'm not a US voter.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 23, 1998.

>>What connection does spending on the space program or any other Government program have with the y2k problem. Journalistic holism is confusing you. <<

Is NASA Y2K compliant?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), November 23, 1998.

>Is NASA Y2k compliant?

Good question "rockets will be falling from the skies", will the head of NASA book a flight on 01/01/2000. Hey anyone from NASA out there? I understand the flight control computer is very old, since they dare not rewrite the software. Is that a space myth?

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 24, 1998.

As I understand it, the "main" computers aboard are ancient, old, slow, and heavy - more 10x beat by any modern laptop, but NASA doesn't have the dollars to replace them/retest them/reprogram them with more modern ones. The basic computers on Apollo were little more than a 15 function calculator, but weighed over 30 lbs each, were about 10x10x8 "box" with a row of LED's on top - consider that space and weight are critical on a spaceship.

The Shuttle computers were made from the same "contractor" and "administrator" designer teams, designed in late 1960's and early 1970's, built in 1975-1978 time frames. probably not changed since then.

Ground devices and controllers are more likely to be failing though. If there is no shuttle in orbit, can't hurt anybody until the next one goes up. Its standard practice to simulate everything ahead of time for months on "equal" systems computers and mockups, so the actual programs will be adequately tested before flight. Certainly could delay things though.

Ever thought about all that launch and tracking stuff: it all needs to work too!

Y2K compliant? NASA is getting a poor grade - this might be one of the reasons. Don't enough to tell, won't speculate past what is above.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 24, 1998.

"Is NASA Y2K compliant"?

Congressman Horn's latest report card gives NASA a C+. As far behind as the government is though, average isn't saying much.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 24, 1998.