Good points. Myself, being a Canadian (don't laugh) consider the same
economic points and until yesterday pondered heavily the pros and cons
of space exploration, with the cons usually winning. I have been aware
of the contribution of space exploration on society as a whole and
that the spin-off of technology has benefited almost every one of us
at one point in our lives, but I never really believed in the economic
reality of the direct benefits until I read an editorial in our local
newspaper. It was titled "The Return of Discovery - Bang for your
buck" by Marc Garneau, President of the Canadian Space Agency (yes we
have one). He had, apparently got ticked off, "blew my cool" when,
only hours after the launch of discovery, someone asked the perpetual
question, "Why is it that with all the poverty and social problems in
the world, we are spending money on space exploration?" That question,
asked of the usually polite, well traveled, Mr. Garneau prompted him
to do a very un-Canadian thing. He wrote a half page column explaining
why. I would dearly love to post a link to the article, but alas, this
is Canada and we tend not to post such boastings on the internet. The
newspaper chose to e-publish an article on T.E. Lawrence instead,
"Making war 'upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a
knife.' (see the tie-in?).
To make a long story short (too late) the upshot is this. The Canadian
space industry employs 8,000 people, generated 2.4 billion dollars in
revenue last year, and the Canadian government only put 300 million
into it (not enough to make the movie). Best part, more than half the
revenue came from exports. Being that Canada is one of the most
heavily taxed nations, it wouldn't surprise anyone to know that a good
chunk of that 2.4B$ ends up back in the government coffers to be use
to alleviate the 'social problems of the world.'
With the economics of scale applied, I imagine that your situation in
the states is the same. You probably get just as much bang for your
space buck as we do.
--
The Road Warrior Hobbit
no -- it's NOT ok to contact this account with services or other
commercial interests
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
| On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:07:47 -0700, mcdaniel_san2 wrote:
|
|
| Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
|
| There are those who say that it's the fault of
environmentalists -
| Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're
rather
| spend your money murdering people than exploring the new
frontiers of
| humankind.
|
| The House just voted to authorized spending billions on sending
people
| to the moon and Mars. Maybe you're just out of touch with
reality.
|
| Yeah, I guess so. Dunno what hair got up my ass that day, sorry. But
it
| is kind of mind-boggling to think of the amount of money spent on
the
| military. I hope they get Iraq and Afghanistan resolved soon.
|
| Remember the insanely successful Mars rovers? The ones with the
| air bags and tetrahedral lander? That cost, like $300 million?
| Like, you can send a robot to Mars cheaper than you can make a
| movie about sending a robot to Mars. :-)
|
| Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and
they
| were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and
"Shouldn't
| we be spending this money on Earth" had come up, and so I dialed the
| phone. I got through! I was gonna get to ask a question live on
cable
| TV! I very carefully phrased my question - all of the moisture had
| drained out of my mouth and was coming out my armpits - I asked, "Is
| it not true that if the US refrained from buying even _one_ aircraft
| carrier or nuclear-missile submarine, that the savings would cover
| the entire cost of NASA since its inception?" And the _real_
| scientists agreed to a man. The pols hemmed and hawed as usual.
|
| Anyway, it was kewl at the time, and I just felt like sharing. %-}
|
| Thanks!
| Rich
|
|