As much as I am interested in SF, and utopian feminist fiction, and Babylon
5, I have serious reservations about the manned (staffed?) space program. I
like things like satellites and the recent Mars probe, but I seriously
question sending people into space when we can't solve our problems down
here. BTW, I think you all should become familiar with the controversy
surrounding the upcoming Cassini Mission--if that fails lots of people
could die.
Anyway, if you look at the NASA budget by itself it doesn't look like much,
so we have to ask ourselves How are they doing all these space things on a
pittance?
The answer?
Military spending.
While NASA's line in the budget may not look big, it benefits indirectly
from the huge miltary/industrial complex. It uses some facilities that are
military, or were developed by the military. It employs pilots who were
trained in the military. It benefits from research conducted in
universities which are heavily funded by the military, especially in the
areas of science (maybe the reason why our libraries are so underfunded is
that they produce little of use to the military).
All I am saying is follow the money trail. Space programs require heavy
capital expenditures, which are only really possible in industrialized
countries.
The space program may have developed velcro for those $150 Nikes, but it
ain't providing housing for the homeless in my neighborhood. True, our real
targets should be set on the military, but I want to point out that the
space program is very intertwined with the military.
Chuck0
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:26 PDT