From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Feb 28 2003 - 11:33:23 MST
--- Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> I believe the author was stating that the greater
> resources are closer, at
> hand, on the ocean floor; while space colonization
> and exploration might cost
> trillions and will not happen soon, in any case.
Again, that's because of NASA, not because of space
itself. As I have posted on this list before, there
are several ventures operating right now that believe,
with significant justification, that they can create
their own manned "space programs" (space tourism and
other commercial ventures) for far less than one
billion dollars (investment before the operation
becomes self-financing, even profitable).
As others have pointed out, there's also the flaw of
attacking this as "either/or". One of the main rules
of political budgets: if you successfully attack one
organization's budget, that frees up the money for
*ANY* other use, not just the one you were trying to
divert its resources towards. If you shut down NASA,
who is to say the money won't go to, say, welfare or
the latest War On X instead of to undersea R&D? Lobby
for something on its own merits; don't lobby by
comparing it to a specific other.
Though, that said, attacking the largest budgetary
consumptions, for instance the parts of the defense
budget even the DOD never asked for, could free up a
lot of money for other uses. One could lobby for
oceanic R&D as boosting the economies of (read: pork
to) every coastal state, which accounts for over 1/3,
maybe over 1/2 depending on how much coast you need
(especially if you include development of the Great
Lakes), of the United States. Which is how these
unwanted DOD expenditures get approval in the first
place.
So...anyone want to contact this author and get him to
form a suitably pork-barrel version of what he wants
and propose it to Congress? If he proposes it that
way, he might find unexpectedly easy passage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 11:37:05 MST