Have we become so jaded that this doesn't "excite" us any longer? I don't know about you people, but I still get "chills" when I see the space shuttle launched. I wish the "news media" gave it more coverage.

The astronauts have now installed a laboratory at the International Space Station. I may be like a "kid at Christmas", but I still find this stuff really exciting.

Here's the link to the article, Astronauts Install Laboratory on Space Station

(Psst...Unk...maybe we need a "science" category.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 11, 2001

Answers

I stood in my front yard and watched the Atlantis blast off Wednesday evening. At least half of the neighborhood was out for this one. And it was just spectacular, just dark enough to really see the fire belching out the back, the setting sun illuminating the smoke trail in shades of red and yellow, all set against the twilight sky. An absolutely amazing sight, the best launch I've seen yet.

Yeah, I got chills from that one.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 11, 2001.

Frankly, nothing exciting is being done. Space exploration takes big money with no known immediate payback anywhere close to the investment. Private industry can't play it that far in advance and remain competitive, and for politicians, the long run is later this afternoon. The public (or at least enough of it for their votes to count) thinks this is a waste of money compared to handouts with them in the receiving line. Without any "evil empire" competitor, the chauvinistic motivation is gone, so the funds for science and exploration must compete with our liberal effort to subsidize poverty. And subsidies are winning, partially because we've purchased enough votes to keep these policies in force. Seeing the pattern of payoffs for sheer curiosity requires an intelligence we simply don't reward.

I'm not sure what the space station is for, but I do enjoy seeing and reading anything I can about it. I live next door to the Marshall Space Flight Center, and we have a local full-time NASA channel here, but as a national priority, the space program has been running on empty for some time, funded out of sheer habit and a few vested interests. It's maintained for the same reason that, say, rice growing subsidies are maintained -- because those with their mouths on the teat want to continue suckling, and nobody else really cares.

But the pictures sure are fantastic!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 11, 2001.

As a former aerospace injuneer, I too would like to see the space program re-invigorated. It's been 30 years since we sent anyone to the moon. New technologies should make it easier to explore space.

Still, it's hugely expensive. There is no political mandate to spend billions on elitist mega-projects with no direct benefit to Joe Six-pack. A practical case or a national-interest case must be made to justify this. I don't think a "national adventure", pure-science case can be made (at least not at the levels of the 1960s space program). Where are the Russians when you need them?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 11, 2001.

My dad lived in Florida (and worked for Rockwell on the Space Shuttle program) when Columbia made the 1st flight of the Shuttle Program. I lived in California (still do) at the time. My dad videotaped the inaugural launch. Friends of mine and I trekked to Edwards Air Force Base and videotaped the landing. There was an estimated 300,000 people tailgating for that event. It's an incredible site to see, the landing of a shuttle and the enthusiasm of the people witnessing it.

Patricia, regarding the media, I agree. Unless it blows-up or some other catastrophe, we will have to click links on the web to see what's going on. I usually go here or here to get my Space Fix.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

The reason is because space travel is outdated. It will never be possible for man to explore space using existing, or even "on the drawing board" technologies, due to the fraility and short lifespan of humans. Being put in a coma for 100 years, or flying to and fro at 3/4 light speed to return to an Earth 10,000 years in the future (relativistic time dialation) just don't cut it. The public is disillusioned, and with good reason, because the only near term potential of space seems to be militarization (orbiting nukes, spy telescopes and lasers) and commercialization (billboards, satellite relays, pollution, and well-healed "tourists" in space).

NASA, and small groups of fringe scientists, are working on the next "big thing": something called "propellentless propusion" in the "Realm of the Many Worlds", which is the currently accepted model in the quantum physics community for material reality and animal (and some say plant)consiousness. Essentially, science now tells us that the Universe is not described by a "wave equation", but that there are an infinite (or at least quite a few) number of Universes corresponding to every possible solution of the wave equation (and probably then some). These universes appear to exist in "non-local" hyper-dimentional space, some less than a millimeter away from our own. "Non-local" means the region outside of the conventional spacetime "lightcone", that is, the region inhabited by beings, objects, and particles that are moving at sub-luminal speeds. Sub-luminal means less than the speed of light (186,282 miles per second). This was explained in an article the August 2000 Scientific American.

To me it sounds a lot like the "look within" that the Eastern mystics have been preaching all along.

See

www.stardrive.org

www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/QuanCon.html

for more information on how to "get excited" again about "space" travel.

-- Bucky Fuller (bf@andromenda.net), February 11, 2001.

Bucky, to quote one of sci fi writers, "The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us shall escape to the stars."

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 11, 2001.

That would be Robert Heinlein.

-- nonehere (none@to.give.net), February 11, 2001.

Unk, I always wanted to take a trip down to FL just to watch it launch. I almost moved to Melbourne Beach some years back (was going to interview with Harris - long story), but of course, I didn't move, and never took the trip.

And now, instead of a two-day thing, it's a vacation for me. Sigh.

(Moral of The Story: Don't Procrastinate.)

I would love to see the program invigorated. I think it's very shortsighted (and a tad narrow-minded) to look at it in terms of immediate ROI.

Fortunately, history's greatest inventors didn't suffer from such.

-- [off soapbox] (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 11, 2001.

Flint, " liberal effort to subsidize poverty. And subsidies are winning"

Why do you keep spouting the same BS?
The only mouths on the government teat that are increasing are those of the corporate welfare recipients.

You sound like an old fart with a one tract mind, griping about the same old thing long after it's relevance is gone. Like the old W.W.II Veterans who bitched bout guys having long hair, there are still some doing it, but looking around all I see are those ugly shaved heads the boys seem to like these days. (Gads, I miss men with HAIR!)
I think you are living with a resentment of the way things were done in the past, the last 5 years have weaned the public, even changed the roadblocks and mentality that grew it in the first place. This isn't the 1980's where even college graduates couldn't get a job, technology has leveled the playing field and social attitudes have changed throughout the decades to the point where large groups of people are no longer held back from making a living they can exist on.

Unless you base your beliefs on "cops in L.A. " or other narrowly focussed television programming, you would be aware of this.

It is getting boring listening to you whine over the same old, outdated social ills.

Hello... the societal whiplash against the extremes that were allowed in the past has come and gone, wiping out a large portion of those old "throw money at the poor" programs, with more falling every day. It has come to the point where those who are truly needy and, for whatever reason, unable to function in society on their own, are being harmed. The general social attitude towards them right now is "let's die" they are a burden on society and are contributing nothing anyway. It is a disgrace the way we now treat our elderly, for example.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 11, 2001.

Patricia:

I "talk" about this stuff with my son. That would be the son that I took to space-camp in Huntsville. He's STILL very interested in this stuff, and so am I. [and yeah...I hadn't thought anyone else was.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 11, 2001.

Anita:

The space camp is neat. So is the space and rocket center. I enjoy living in Huntsville at least partly because of the space program, and every now and then I get involved in writing firmware for some space program device or another. Around here, we are all space nuts, the sci fi section is the largest in the bookstores, and everything NASA is front page news in the newspaper.

But Huntsville is an oasis. The space program funding is political and as Cherri demonstrates, as soon as politics is mentioned, too many people forget all about the space program, it's just too far down their list of priorities.

As (I think) David Suzuki said, we have lost our vision as a race, and we are burning medieval masterpieces to cook tonight's dinner. It's a shame today. In a few generations, when all opportunity is lost, it will have been absolutely criminal. It's hard to feel all that great about living during the time when we *could* have done something permanently wonderful, if only we'd had the sense. Earlier, we lacked the technology. Later, we will lack the resources. Today, we lack only the will.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 11, 2001.

we have lost our vision as a race

If there is no competition, there is no race...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

Deep Bob, very deep.

-- abc (sheesh@boob.com), February 11, 2001.

Don't forget the other NASA adventure happening tomorrow. They will try to land the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous spacecraft (NEAR) on the asteroid EROS. The craft wasn't designed for a landing, but they are going to try it. Signals traveling at the speed of light take 17.5 minutes to travel the 196 million miles to the craft. The controlers hope to have it perform four braking maneuvers which will take it out of orbit and land it at a speed of 2 to 7 mph. they expect an 85% chance of success.

-- John Littmann (littmannj@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

Deep Bob, very deep.

-- abc (sheesh@boob.com)

Thanks...I was hoping it wouldn't go over your inbread dome...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 11, 2001.

We stopped practice Wednesday night to watch. Never ceases to amaze me and I've seen most of'em. 3 fields, 60 different folks, all with their jaws on the ground as this thing took off. Damned thing looked like it was in south Ponte Vedra, only 5 files south, when it was actually 120+ miles south!!

The natural sunset effect was better than any mind altering drug I can "think" of.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 11, 2001.

Deano,

You guys going to be any good this year. It is Little League baseball you coach isn't it?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 11, 2001.

Flint,

I was intrigued to see you quote David Suzuki. He is pretty popular up here, and is appears on TV and radio quite often.

He has a foundation called the David Suzuki Foundation; URL is

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

Flint, I can't imagine that you have much in common, politically speaking, with Suzuki. He is very much a big gov't kind of guy - in the sense that he believes gov'ts should be much more interventionist in the regulation of environmental policies.

Regards

JC

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), February 11, 2001.

Johnny:

I'm not a tree-hugger, and I believe in mixed land use, and tradeoffs between multiple requirements -- the future, recreation, preservation, hunting, exploitation to support our lifestyle, etc.

But I also recognize that pollution is "free" in an economic sense, that there are externalities that only government can force to be internalized through fines or licences or usage fees or whatever. I don't believe in letting economic actors pollute until people decide not to buy their products because they can't breathe anymore.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 12, 2001.

JBT

Yep. 12 year olds at Jax Beach Babe Ruth. Since we paid our dues last year with mostly 11 year olds - hey , we finished 2nd at 8-8, we should be 'the team to beat' this year. Out of 12 kids, 9 are 12 years old and 11 out of the 12 are very good lil' ballplayers.

We had 4 kids (and mine wasn't one of'em) that knocked it outa the park the other night at the 1st practice. Should prove to be a very fun season!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

Deano, I coached twelve year olds in soccer. What a hoot! When they made a score, their smiles made it worth my volunteering. Enjoy every minute!

Lars, an aerospace engineer, I didn't know that! How long did you do it? My master's is in "space" engineering. I was in a "new" program (ten years ago!) with the local officers who track space objects from Norad. Learned lots about the Space Suttle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 13, 2001.

Howdy Maria,

Yeah, working with the kids is definitely a rewarding hoot. Too bad the participation is declining though. Last year we had 14 teams, this year 8.

It's the only time of year my sorry ass gets any exercize though! Running around for a couple hours 2-3 times a week with a bunch of 12 twelve year olds will put you in your place quick!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

Deano- What do you think accounts for the decline in participation?

Good for you for coaching, by the way. I can imagine how that would be rewarding. Until a couple years ago I had always wanted to coach youth baseball. (Given my choice, I would have preferred coaching in the league immediately above Little League. Called "Pony League" where I'm from.) Unfortunately, work or my location somehow always stood in the way.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 13, 2001.

CD

I think there are several reasons for the decline in participation. Too many 'indoor' activities are readily available (nintendo, playstation, MTV, etc..) and that's a lot easier on mom'n'dad (not having to run back'n'forth to practice and games). It definitely requires a commitment for a few months from the whole family.

I drove passed a soccer field not too long ago that was FILLED with kids of all ages. This is not a bad thing by any means, but I think it does cut into Little League registrations.

Having said that, I honestly believe that a desire to play baseball (or any sport) is gonna start at home. If dear ol' dad never asked you to play catch, would you have taken an interest in the game?? Maybe, maybe not.

Ya know, I can remember my Little League days when there were 20 teams with 14 kids each every summer. My, how times have changed....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

CD

You're correct about the rewards. I remember my first year coaching I had a kid who simply had not figured out how to 'run' yet. He took quick, little-bitty steps on his tip-toes, only using the lower part of his legs to move. I took him aside and suggested to him to take big steps, from the hips, real fast. The next practice that kid was beating everyone around the basepaths. Definitely one of my better momments.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

Good explanations for the decline, Deano. That makes sense. Cool story 'bout teaching the kid how to run. Gotta feel good about that.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 13, 2001.

Rumor has it the Board of Governors for Little League Inc. is headed by a member of the Unification Church.

-- Little Birdie Told Me (howe9@shentel.net), February 13, 2001.

Deano,

Coaching baseball was one of the best things I ever got talked into. I spent six yerars coaching minor and major league baseball and really enjoyed the young (8 & 9 year olds) the best. When they got their first hit was always my favorite experience.

Of course the challenge of the competition was also enjoyable. A fellow coach and I still talk about the nine inning marathon we played in the minors on one hot Saturday afternoon. We lost 10-9 on a close play at the plate and I still can tell you about every at-bat for that game.

After my daughter finished major league baseball I coached her team in a 16 & under ASA League. If you want a different experience I suggest that you give that a try sometime. The girls are just so different from the boys it is hard to describe. Definitely enjoyable though after you get used to the cheers.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 13, 2001.

Maria--

In the 60s I worked for a now defunct aerospace division of GM. Our main product was Inertial Guidance Systems for the military and for NASA. I was a small cog in a big machine.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

JBT

I know what you mean. Last summer, our 11 yr old all-star team lost a 1-0 game in the city championships on a passed ball in the 5th. Team Jax went on to win state down in West Palm. Huge heartbreaker....

One of our summer tournaments coincided with a 14&under girls softball tourney at the same complex. I'm hear to tell ya, those little gals were players!! I walked over to check out an inning or so and ended up watching 2 entire games.

Thank God summer is almost here......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 14, 2001.

Lars, small cog, aren't we all? But the machine doesn't work without you, still an important part.

In the 60's wow, that sure dates you! :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 14, 2001.

This is such a cool view of the space station.....

Hope that worked.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 20, 2001.

Speaking of cool.......

Images of Jupiter's largest moon, Ganymede, from the Galileo and Voyager space missions show a bright flat surface that scientists said on February 28, 2001 was probably caused by eruptions of icy volcanic material. The research published in the science journal Nature adds more evidence about the formation of Ganymede's unusual features which the scientists believe is evidence of water or slush that emerged one billion years ago. The moon is shown during Galileo's 14th orbit of Jupiter in January 1999. (Jpl/Nasa/Reuters)

-- hey, I'm tryin' here.......... (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 28, 2001.

Even cooler.....

The Hubble telescope has snapped this remarkable view of a perfectly "edge-on" galaxy, NGC 4013. This new Hubble picture, taken in January, 2001, reveals with exquisite detail huge clouds of dust and gas extending along, as well as far above, the galaxy's main disk. NGC 4013 is a spiral galaxy, similar to our Milky Way, lying some 55 million light-years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Ursa Major. Viewed face-on, it would look like a nearly circular pinwheel, but NGC 4013 happens to be seen edge-on from our vantage point. Even at 55 million light-years, the galaxy is larger than Hubble's field of view, and the image shows only a little more than half of the object, albeit with unprecedented detail. REUTERS/NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team/Handout

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 01, 2001.

Hard to imagine that we're alone in the universe. Hey Patricia, did the caption say what the place was (in your first picture above)? It looks dry.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com`), March 01, 2001.

You mean the moon? It's Ganymede. I was just amazed by the colors (I never seem to see what they claim everyone sees).

I agree with you; when I look at these pictures of the distant (and not-so-distant) galaxies, I can't believe for a minute we're "alone". IM-uninformed-O, the law of averages would have to kick in; if WE'RE here and WE "happened", there must be others with similar circumstances.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 01, 2001.

The pictures are nice. However, we're bound to this earth until it ceases to exist. Only the very rich will be able to fly on a space shuttle, and they'll find life in outer space just as miserable as life on earth. If scientists want to use outer space experimentation to cure the ills of mankind, so be it. But to build a paradise in the sky is a waste of our taxpayer's dollars. Misery loves company.

-- how I see it (howIseeit@howIseeit.ddd), March 01, 2001.

The universe is a strange place. This deep-field image from the Hubble telescope actually looks back into time -- to within a billion years or so after the Big Bang.

I have supported space exploration since day one. Space really is "the final frontier," no joke, that's where we need to be. Nor is it necessarily just a rich man's game; the whole point behind the space shuttle program was to develop reusable launch vehicles to cut the cost. But instead, Congress cut funding and they had to go with disposable main boosters.

There are raw material galore in space, including some asteroids which appear to be nearly-pure stainless steel(! -- what, the carbon "cooked" into the iron in the supernova explosion that scattered the raw materials into our solar system?). There is nearly endless energy and water. We've already proven that plants can be grown in space.

I do have to address one other common misconception. I can't speak for the space program in the 80's and 90's, but I know for a fact that, for every dollar spent on the Apollo lunar program, far more than that was recovered by private industries capitalizing on space technology -- from computers and microchips to textiles. It was the best investment this country ever made.

I can argue passionately for hours about the need to go into space, how it could be made to pay for itself within a decade or two, and so on, and so on. But that would be boring.

Instead, I'll just ask you to go outside on some clear, cold night and look up.

Just stand there and look up for a while. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 01, 2001.

I agree, Stephen. We stand to lose way too much if we eliminate the space program. And not just the practical that you've mentioned (e.g., potential raw materials). We lose a sense of wonder; of discovery.

Face it, the world (is becoming/has become? depends on who you ask) a very cynical place. Blessed (not in the religious sense) are those who can still find wonder and amazement in the world.

I never want to lose that part of myself. The space program is just one way to retain it and possibly GROW it for many, many people.

And that one gem of a find will make it worth all the tax dollars some complain are spent.

(Don't turn this thread into a political BS session. I'll bet those who complain the loudest that the space program wastes tax dollars are the FIRST to support corporate welfare.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 02, 2001.

Trish,

Well said. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 02, 2001.

Patricia, no the one with the words "hoped that worked". Was that the moon? It looks like a lake and river. Yeah, 55 million light years is a great distance but our galaxy is so very average, that the conditions must be similar in other galaxies. True, the earth is at the precise distance from the sun, not too close that everything burns up and not too far that everything freezes. But this environment can't be unique. Just leaves so much to the imagination.

Stephen, a friend of mine worked for NASA at the time the STS first got funding. He thought it would never "fly" and decided not to work on the program. I'm not sure who the proponents were at that time but the majority of scientists in the field thought it was too expensive and not worth the trouble. Well, of course, hind sight is 20-20. But we still use disposable launchers today and I think we'll continue to use both methods. The advantage of the STS is that we can fix things that in times past would have been lost.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 02, 2001.

---Don't turn this thread into a political BS session.---

Too late, you already started it.

As a somewhat liberal, humane-type of person I'm surprised you would want to pour money into this rat-hole instead of helping out people right here on earth.

It's nice for you to be able to dream about stars and their possibilities, but there are people within your city who dream about having a balanced diet, having enough gas to get to work next week, (even a reliable car!) heating in the wintertime and cooling in the summer. Come on back down to earth!

-- (St@r .gazer), March 02, 2001.

Maria, that is a view of the International Space Station (I guess from a shuttle) and the land mass is California. Can't believe I didn't post the caption. It's such a clear picture. I guess I thought the space station was "really far away", but it just looks so *close* in this shot.

"St@r .gazer", you are absolutely correct. But I don't think this is the thread for that discussion. And yes, I **do** believe in money towards the space program. There is so much out there we don't know; how can we then be so sure it's throwing money away? I agree that immediate needs are more important, but I think almost equally important are the aesthetic needs I mentioned ... that sense of wonder, of discovery, of Hope. And make no mistake; those are genuine needs in light of the cynicism that has permeated society (including *me*). I'd rather see corporate welfare cut to shreds.......but again, this isn't the thread for that discussion.

(Besides, I'm "on hiatus" from political discussions on fora.....)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), March 02, 2001.

$914 million dollars DOWN THE DRAIN! Face it people, you and I aren't going anywhere except to ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

Friday March 2 8:15 AM ET

NASA Terminates Space Plane Project

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - NASA (news - web sites) has terminated its experimental X-33 space plane project that had been envisioned as a lower-cost successor to the aging space shuttle fleet for missions into orbit, space agency officials have announced.

The X-33 program was given the ax after five years of development that never even reached the point of a test flight.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said it spent $912 million on the project -- hoping to create an effective new-generation reusable spacecraft to transport people and cargo into space. X-33 designer Lockheed Martin Corp. spent $357 million, NASA said.

NASA also said the X-34, another, smaller suborbital test vehicle, was being killed. NASA said it is in the process of ending its X-34 contract with Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Virginia.

``This has been a very tough decision but we think it is the right business decision,'' Art Stephenson, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, said in a statement on Thursday.

``We have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge from these X-programs, but one of the things we have learned is that our technology has not yet advanced to the point that we can successfully develop a new reusable launch vehicle that substantially improves safety, reliability and affordability,'' Stephenson added.

The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, managed the X-33 and X-34 programs for NASA.

In November 1999, the X-33's composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing, the space agency said. NASA said Lockheed Martin proposed to complete development of the space plane by replacing its two composite liquid hydrogen tanks with aluminum tanks. But NASA said the benefits of testing the X-33 in flight did not justify the cost.

NASA began the X-33 program in 1996 as part of its Reusable Launch Vehicle program.

The space agency said the program called for the demonstration of a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle -- one that would go from launch stand to orbit without using multiple stages as the Saturn moon rocket did or dropping rocket motors and fuel tank like the space shuttle.

NASA said the X-33 program will end when the cooperative agreement between the space agency and Lockheed Martin expires on March 31 unless Lockheed Martin chooses to go forward with the program with its own funds.

-- how I see it (howIseeit@howIseeit.ddd), March 02, 2001.

Hey "how i see it", you're short-sighted. The space program has brought numerous benefits to mankind. I doubt it would persuade you to attempt to outline them here.

It is only a matter of time before humans move off of Earth. I don't agree with your assessment that we are stuck here.

I'll bet you are a creationist too!

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 02, 2001.

Just a comment for star gazer, since you make a political statement. We do get lots of benefits from space research besides visiting the moon. Velcro came out of the space program. Materials for radiation protection and temperature stabilization come from the space program. Solar panels, wow what a concept! The energy from the sun can warm your house and heat your water. The progression of science does in fact help us here on earth; it does make our lives better.

But I can't help you in getting a balanced diet. I've never understood why people on welfare (I've lived it, so that's how I know) buy doritto chips instead of fruits and vegetables, especially when the latter is cheaper.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 02, 2001.

--Velcro came out of the space program.--

Velcro is good for crippled people who can't button their buttons. Who says it wouldn't have been invented without the space program? I think it would.

--Materials for radiation protection and temperature stabilization come from the space program.--

Hmm, I've never needed those kinds of protections. No one I know has. We've only needed heating and air conditioning. I guess we're not as technologically advanced as those millions of other people.

--Solar panels, wow what a concept!--

They don't do us much good! We would need them most in the wintertime and guess what? Go on, guess! Besides, I have trouble coming up with enough money to pay for stamps some months, (I'm retired and on my social security) much less solar panels. You don't even want to know how much I have to pay out-of-pocket for my medications!

--The energy from the sun can warm your house and heat your water. The progression of science does in fact help us here on earth; it does make our lives better. --

I agree. It does make SOME people's lives better.

I don't eat Doritos or any of that kind of junk. The staple of my diet is rice.

I worked hard all my life in menial jobs but I always did honest work. I hope you and your children don't end up like me but if you do, you might think differently about the space program.

-- (St@r.gazer), March 02, 2001.

"I'll bet you are a creationist too!"

WRONG! I'm an athiest. We've been in the space program now since the 50's. No one I tell you is going to get off this earth and cut a fat hog in the ass! This may shock you Buddy, but I believe earth will be visited by other beings from other planets before we setup a kingdom beyond. SMHO

-- How I see it (howIseeit@howIseeit.ddd), March 02, 2001.

St@rgazer,

Why do you assume that this must be an "either or" proposition? That EITHER we help the poor, or EITHER we renew manned exploration of space? We can do both.

Further, manned exploration of space can be made to pay for itself. I like the way that you just dismissed the FACT that the Apollo program did just that, many times over. Is that sortof like, "my mind is already made up, don't confuse me with facts?" :)

That these technologies could have been developed elsewhere and otherwise is completely and utterly irrelevant. Someone other than Henry Ford could have invented the mass-produced automobile. It didn't have to be Truett Cathy who invented the chicken filet sandwich. Granted. But they did and became very wealthy off of these things.

Likewise, these technologies WERE developed for Apollo, it DID benefit us and made a handsome profit. Apollo is one of the few (if not the ONLY) government programs that has EVER done that. Most of them are sinkholes.

But again: that's not the point. The point is, mankind needs to expand into space. The alternative -- freely embraced by some, which baffles me -- is a future filled with belt-tightening, lost resources, increased pollution and Orwellian population control.

Where will the poor be then? They'll suffer the MOST from that.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 03, 2001.

Hmm, I've never needed those kinds of protections. No one I know has.

Star, you find this things in winter clothing. So yes, you have seen it if you live in cooler areas.

coming up with enough money to pay for stamps some months

Are you suggesting that the gov give up the space program and let the mail service be free? Let me know and I'll send you a roll of stamps!

I have to pay out-of-pocket for my medications You do have your problems. Maybe you should spend some time on the net looking for alternative remedies, (unless those meds are for fun). I understand the cost of meds. My mother has hers. Are you suggesting that the gov give up the space program, so they can buy your meds? I'd have a tough time with that one. Should the gov pay for a smoker's chemo?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 03, 2001.

Gosh, I didn't think anyone was going to bother talking to me again. It's going to be difficult addressing all these points, but here goes...

---Likewise, these technologies WERE developed for Apollo, it DID benefit us and made a handsome profit. ---

I can't address that without possibly giving away who I am.

---But again: that's not the point. The point is, mankind needs to expand into space. The alternative -- freely embraced by some, which baffles me -- is a future filled with belt-tightening, lost resources, increased pollution and Orwellian population control.-- -

I don't see anything wrong with belt-tightening. I have gotten used to it, and as a Nation we are one of the most obese people on earth.

Increased pollution? How?

I'm all for population control... people who aren't responsible for themselves shouldn't be responsible for others. I'm also for birth control. People who don't want the responsibilty of other lives shouldn't have to take that responsibility.

I also think people who don't (or haven't) worked shouldn't be given handouts. For those of us who have, I don't think we should have to live in fear. I had to pay ungodly sums of income tax in my lifetime and I'm not seeing a comparitive amount returning.

I don't see how I, as a poor person, can suffer much more.

Maria,

---Star, you find this things in winter clothing. So yes, you have seen it if you live in cooler areas.---

I don't. I know stuff like "Insulate" is available but I can't afford it. I really don't see much of that stuff in the stores anyway, only in catalogs. I would be amazed if any of it turn up at Big Lots! I, and most everyone I know wear layers of cotton clothing and jackets that are nylon on the outside and cotton and nylon batting on the inside. Honestly, Maria. Those products aren't in my house that I know of.

--Are you suggesting that the gov give up the space program and let the mail service be free?--

No, of course I don't think the mail service should be free. I don't think it's even run by the government anymore and that's fine with me. I believe in competition. I just don't believe the government should be subsidizing space missions when there are more basic things that need to be subsidized. The system is so backwards I can't even make over $200 a month without losing my SS! It's hell to get old, poor and stuck in a rut.

---Should the gov pay for a smoker's chemo?---

Of course not. That illness as well as drug and alcohol addiction are a choice someone makes and they should suffer the consequences. I just think money wasted on space exploration for pretty pictures is a shame because there are many, many people in the same boat me and your mom are in. I'm just as angry about subsidizing art, by the way.

I'm not sure I said all this as well as I could have, but I've said what I feel and I'm not sure you would feel any different if you had lived my life. I know there's nothing I can do about my situation now, but if I had my life to do all over again I would be a lot more driven for the almighty buck...given what I know about the system now. C'est la vie.

-- (St@r. gazer), March 03, 2001.

Gosh, I didn't think anyone was going to bother talking to me again.

Why would you think that? Anyone who'd stop talking to you just because they disagree with your viewpoint isn't worth talking with, anyway, so it's no loss.

I don't see anything wrong with belt-tightening. I have gotten used to it, and as a Nation we are one of the most obese people on earth.

Granted on the obesity. But again, I don't see your logic. It's almost as if you're saying, "because I've had it hard, so should everyone else." That hardly makes sense.

Besides, what if someone could PROVE to you that space exploration would bring prosperity, including better jobs, more raw materials, etc., etc.? Would you still oppose it, and if so, why?

Increased pollution? How?

More people = more waste material, from sewage to refuse. Sheer mathematics. And I'm not talking about ordinary population control ...

I'm all for population control... people who aren't responsible for themselves shouldn't be responsible for others.

... as you seem to be. I specifically said, "ORWELLIAN" population control. Literally, enforced one or two child per family laws, such as those in place in China. Literally, "if you have more than the prescribed number of kids, the kid will be killed and/or you will be subject to prosecution." That I *am* opposed to, vehemently.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 04, 2001.

I'm still on maria's comment bout buying doritos instead of fruits and veggies.

Very well put and so true.

I've done my part for the star gazing thing, I've purchased a vehicle with a moon roof :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 04, 2001.