Because it is there?

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bill Willliams 14 January 2003 3:00 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.13.1130 MST)]

According Powers,

Putting two and two together, I get two [and therefore] -- the
space program won't cost the economy as a whole a darned thing.

Tony Lawson 2OO3 _Reorienting Economics_ warns about the dangers
of the use of mathematics in economics in chapter 10 p. 247-82.
The use of math in economics Lawson argues has been pernicious.
But, I am not sure how to apply Lawson's warning. Is Bill's
putting two and two and getting two, math and therefore subject
to Lawson's condemnation. Or, is it a case of "not math," and
therefore escapes Lawson's condemnation. I'm not sure. Lawson,
who is on the faculty at Cambridge University UK, is going to
be here this spring, so I'll have a chance to ask him.

While I am a bit puzzled by Bill's whatever it is, I am
overjoyed to learn that going to Mars isn't going to cost
us, or closer to home me, anything.

But, then I note that, while it isn't supposed to cost anything,
the government is going to get the money for the project, which
if there isn't going to be any cost wouldn't seem to be completely
neccesary, through taxes.

Darn! And, seven letter oaths and all that other stuff.

Then Powers says,

you get the idea.

I'm afraid really I do. Does anyone else hear this enourmous sucking
sound?

But, Bill isn't done not yet, and neither am I. He goes on to say,

It's not easy to show how the Big Picture would be affected by a multi-trillion-dollar national project,

Bill's obviously got a firm grip on the "Big Picture." And, He's
no slouch in regard to the "vision thing" either. But, precisely
where does Bill stands in regard to Voodo ecnomics? This needless
perhaps to say is a momentous issue. But, it is an issue that
remains in some doubt.

And, I think Bill may be mistaken in this respect-- the "it's not
easy" bit. Rick Marken's in a recent post offered the considered
assessment that in facxt, "...it owuld be easy...." Easy that is
to construct the Test Bed. Rick said he has some spare time and
volunteered. This may be good because I don't look for NSF, or
DARPA to support this project.

On second thought, Rick also told us some time ago, that he isn't
"particularly good at economic modeling"-- so perhaps a bit of
caution regarding the "Big Picture" might still be in order.
However, what is RAND for? If a "senior scientist" isn't prepared to
explain to us why we should be happy to pay for a "multi-trillion
dollar project" that doesn't cost anything, who is? This is a case
in which his ph.D in psychology might be of some use. And, three
shells and a pea might be also be of even more use.

Still I think Daddy, that's daddy Bush, ought to have warned
sonny boy about Voodo economics. But, then daddy wasn't much good
at "the vision thing." That's why as daddy said, Bill Clinton
ended up on the inside looking out, and daddy ended up on the
outside looking in. Daddy never should have left Greenspan with
his hands on the levers. There is a question here about whether
you ought to trust your fate to a professed advocate of
self-fishness and greed.

If there are Any worries that might somehow arise regarding going
to Mars, they should be soothed by Bill's explaination that,

the Test Bed can keep track of details that are too numerous
and loopy for the human mind to comprehend.

This is good to know. I'm a bit worried about my comprehsion.
And, I'm having real trouble concentrating, I surely couldn't
be trusted with "multi-trillion" dollars deals. Good thing we
have Mr. President George Jr. in charge and keeping track of
the details. The sucking sound is getting louder.

As Evert Dirkson once said in what now seems like an age of
charming naivety that is sadly long gone and far away, that "A
billion here and a billion there and the first thing you know it
you are talking real money." Ev might be proud of how far we've
come. And, apparently how far we are going to go.

But, despite having being set at ease about "the details having
been taken care off,"-- surely we aren't going to, mustn't under any circumstance, forget about the details. Not when somewhere scattered
among the details are trillions and trillions of dollars, dollars
to pay for non-existent costs. I'm still puzzled by all this. I
used to teach the money and banking course. But, I have to confess
I seem to be out of my element here. And, For some reason I still
hear this enourmous sucking sound.

I seem to remember Bill Powers saying he wasn't in the habit of
writing blank checks. Seems like a good idea to me. But, since
we know, or at least we've been told, that it isn't going to cost
anything, why should we worry? I say "Trust in Shrub!" With
Shrub handling the details, and the Big Picture as well, we can
all relax. Or, can we?

I am more or less an inquiring sort. So I ask you, why are
we going to Mars?

Bill williams

2

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.14.0945)]

Bill Willliams (14 January 2003 3:00 AM CST) --

Tony Lawson 2OO3 _Reorienting Economics_ warns about the dangers
of the use of mathematics in economics in chapter 10 p. 247-82.
The use of math in economics Lawson argues has been pernicious.
But, I am not sure how to apply Lawson's warning.

Maybe because this warning is so vague. I could say the same about the use
of words in economics as well. The use of words in economics has been
pernicious. But I can actually give examples of pernicious words. Two that
come immediately to mind are "invisible hand". Imagine how much hard has
been done to people by those two words.

I think you might have a better idea of how to apply Lawson's warning if you
knew what, specifically, the warning was. What is a specific example of the
pernicious use of mathematics in economics? Does he not like calculus?
Addition and subtraction? My guess is that it's not the math that is the
problem but, as in psychology, the fundamental assumptions about functional
relationships in the economy that the math is used to model.

While I am a bit puzzled by Bill's whatever it is, I am
overjoyed to learn that going to Mars isn't going to cost
us, or closer to home me, anything.

It depends on who "us" is. If "us" is all people in the economy then,
indeed, it won't cost us anything because the economy is a closed loop
system. The money for the program, which is tax revenue from the people, is
returned to those same people as income. If "us" is just one subset of the
people in the economy then it depends on which subset you're talking about.
It will cost the non-aerospace "us" a bundle but it will pay the "aerospace"
us that same bundle.

On second thought, Rick also told us some time ago, that he isn't
"particularly good at economic modeling"

I must have been comparing my modeling skills to Bill Powers'. When I look
at the modeling done by economists my own modeling skills look much better.
I think my closed loop model of the economy (described in _More Mind
Readings_), based on TCPs analytic approach, though incomplete, is at least
a start at a macro economics based on PCT.

I am more or less an inquiring sort. So I ask you, why are
we going to Mars?

For the same reason "we" do anything: because it meets the average reference
of all of us. I don't think going to Mars is going to fly, though, so to
speak. I think the average reference for Americans -- which is what
determines where the US government spends its money -- is still focused
mainly on defense.

I see government spending as a way of redistributing GDP if the spending is
commensurate with tax revenue. I still believe, based on my modeling and
economic data analysis, that in a closed loop economy this redistribution is
needed to keep the economy humming, not so much in terms of growth but in
terms of employment. Employment is what allows individuals to control their
input (consumption). Without redistribution there is reduced consumption
(since the wealthy can't use all their income to consume) so there is less
need for production and, thus, fewer employment opportunities. People who
are not employed -- or are uncertain about their employment -- are not in
control of their input. And people who are not in control are not easy to
get along with.

Reduced employment opportunity is what seems to be happening right now in
the US. As the maldistribution of wealth has gotten worse we've seen an
increase in the steady state level of unemployment (which is not well
captured by the government's unemployment rate since that measure does not
include people who have stopped looking for work; I count those people as
unemployed, too). The current real unemployment rate is probably at about
10%. An increase in government spending (such as the Mars program) would
produce a decrease in the unemployment rate but because this decrease would
be based on borrowing there would be no real change in the distribution of
wealth. So once this loan was spent the unemployment rate should return to
the original level. That's what I predict will happen over the next few
years if Bush remains in office. There may be big spending programs (like
Mars) financed by borrowing, and, thus, reduced unemployment, but once we
reach the limits of debt (are there any limits?) unemployment will return to
its original level or, more likely, get worse.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

3

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1126 MST)]

Bill Willliams 14 January 2003 3:00 AM CST--

I am more or less an inquiring sort. So I ask you, why are
we going to Mars?

That's a harder question than it may seem. Obviously, "we" doesn't mean
everybody, even in the vicarious sense. Some people think space exploration
is a waste of time and money, which means that they don't want to spend any
time on it or think about it, and in some cases that they anticipate that
the money spent on space exploration will come out of their pockets and go
into someone else's. The latter will certainly be true in those cases,
because the total buying power of the nation will not be increased soon by
space exploration. The only way to have more real money or labor to spend
in the space sector is to spend less in other sectors. That, of course, is
what all arguments over "waste" are about. Money is never actually wasted;
it's just spent on things that some people don't care about, or object to.
The ones that receive the money that is "wasted" seldom call it a waste. I
think that spending money on timber subsidies is a waste, but timber
harvesters probably take a different position.

I suspect that to some extent, borrowing money to spend on space projects
will help the economy as a whole, but in these times of low interest rates
even free money wouldn't jazz things up much. And of course there's always
the threat of inflation which makes the borrowing futile when there is more
money around than actually needed to satisfy all transactions that could be
made.

But back to the question. I'm not sure at all how many other people share
my interest, but one of my main reasons for supporting space exploration is
that life here on Earth is getting duller and more disappointing by the
year, and I think we really need some interests beyond plowing up
wilderness, crashing cars, blowing things up, killing people, making
immense amounts of money, looking down on people who are Not Like Us, and
laughing at potty jokes. I think people can actually rise to challenges
that involve them in big adventuresome projects, even without T&A. I think
that going to the Moon and Mars is a big adventuresome project. It will do
poor people as much good as most of the other things we're spending
collective money on.

However, I think that the whole project would fare better under a
Democratic administration. Tax-and-spend at least distributes the money a
little more evenly than borrow-and-spend does.

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.01.14.2003) GMT]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.14.0945)]

Bill Willliams (14 January 2003 3:00 AM CST) --

While I am a bit puzzled by Bill's whatever it is, I am
overjoyed to learn that going to Mars isn't going to cost
us, or closer to home me, anything.

It depends on who "us" is. If "us" is all people in the economy then,
indeed, it won't cost us anything because the economy is a closed loop
system. The money for the program, which is tax revenue from the people, is
returned to those same people as income. If "us" is just one subset of the
people in the economy then it depends on which subset you're talking about.
It will cost the non-aerospace "us" a bundle but it will pay the "aerospace"
us that same bundle.

Nothing costs money, on a global scale, but it does cost physical
resources (including labour). More precisely, it costs the
opportunity cost of not using those resources for other things
instead.

Mind you, how to measure that opportunity cost is not clear to me.
To any individual, what that individual considers to be the ideal way
to use those resources is unlikely to coincide with anyone else's, or
with the way the resources will actually be used. Therefore, most
opportunity costs measured by thinking of better (in the measurer's
opinion) things to do with the resources will be positive.

Off hand, I can't think of a way to even define opportunity costs in
any objective way, but perhaps an economist here can say whether and
how it's done. However, I think most people would agree that paying
people to dig holes and fill them in again is inferior to paying them
to build something useful.

-- Richard Kennaway

5

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.14.1300)]

Richard Kennaway (2004.01.14.2003 GMT)

Nothing costs money, on a global scale, but it does cost physical
resources (including labour). More precisely, it costs the
opportunity cost of not using those resources for other things
instead.

Of course. There are different ways to distribute government revenue. The
money the government distributes to defense can't be used to build highways.
My guess is that how good a particular distribution of the revenue is
depends on what one cares about. Since we live in democracies (sort of) I
would guess that the current distribution of government funds represents
something like the average preference in the population for how those funds
should be allocated. I found a pie chart for government expenditures on the
web and it said that 25% is spent on social security, 16% on defense, 20% on
infrastucture, 12% on entitlements, 19% on health and 11% on debt service.
I saw another for the UK and it's surprisingly similar, at least at first
glance.

I like the idea of spending government revenue on going to Mars (which, I
think, would be part of infrastructure costs so that part of the pie would
grow while others shrank) for the same reason Bill does [Bill Powers
(2004.01.14.1126 MST)]: because it would give people an interest "beyond
plowing up wilderness, crashing cars, blowing things up, killing people,
making immense amounts of money, looking down on people who are Not Like Us,
and laughing at potty jokes".

I also agree with Bill when he says that "the whole project would fare
better under a Democratic administration. Tax-and-spend at least distributes
the money a little more evenly than borrow-and-spend does". This was
basically what I said in my earlier reply [Rick Marken (2004.01.14.0945)] to
Bill Williams.

Nice to hear from you, Richard.

The backhoe digger model sounds great. I think one hierarchical control
solution to the problem of specifying where the shovel should go rather than
what the individual joint actuator settings should be is embedded in Bill's
"Little Man" demo. The second (or third) level references in this model
specify the destination of the finder by setting lower level references for
the joint angles. I forgot how it worked exactly but your backhoe model may
be a more general algorithm.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

6

[From Bill williams 14 January 2003 4:00 PM CST]

Richard,

  [From Richard Kennaway (2004.01.14.2003) GMT]

  You say,

  Off hand, I can't think of a way to even define opportunity costs in
  any objective way, but perhaps an economist here can say whether and
  how it's done. However, I think most people would agree that paying
  people to dig holes and fill them in again is inferior to paying them
  to build something useful.

  One of the difficult things about economic issues has its source in
  an economy being both to some extent quantitative-- we can measure
  things like calories, BTU's, barrels of oil, etc, but the whole
  point of an economy is a matter of value, or values. And, values are
  not, inherently not, measurable in the same sense as objects can be
  quantitatively measured.

  Consider the question of inflation. We may have a rough sense that a
  unit of currency buys less today than ten years ago, but is it possible
  to express this "rough sense" in a systematic way in terms of some
  method of computing a price index? Every great once in a while the US
  congress investigates how the price level deflators are being calculated.
  As best I can tell the economists fob them off with a lot of nonsense,
  but the economists also act humble and promise to work harder and do
  better-- and much nothing changes. I would think it should be possible
  to use a control theory approach to constructing a price index that
  would be much closer to our "rough sense" of the value of our currencies.

  On the days that I am an optimist I would agree with you that,

   I think most people would agree that paying people to dig holes
  and fill them in again is inferior to paying them to build
  something useful.

  However, some days I think that it may not matter whether we are
  building "something useful" or not. The side-effects of doing
  something very difficult may be that we learn to do things that
  we otherwise wouldn't learn to do in our day to day efforts to
  solve mundane problems.

  Rather than spend trillions and trillions and send two or three
  people to Mars, I would rather that the physical resources and
  labor be devoted to building a city in which it would be possible
  to walk to work, to see friends, and other stuff. In the US we
  are now spending about 25 percent of our income on medical services.
  The most signficant source of our medical problems (in the US)
  arise from our not being physically active. Such a city-- where
  people could walk without becoming second class citizens would
  improve our well being, reduce our medical bills, and reduce our
  use of oil-- which would in turn possibly mitigate global warming,
  and improve our defense posture (mustn't forget this) by reducing
  our dependence upon foreign oil.

  But, the most important thing that a city that was friendly to
  walking might do is provide an environment that would be a better
  place for children.

  Bill Williams

7

From [Marc Abrams (2004.01.14.2013)]

[From Bill williams 14 January 2003 4:00 PM CST]

  >But, the most important thing that a city that was friendly to
  >walking might do is provide an environment that would be a better
  >place for children.

You haven't spent too much time in NYC have you? :slight_smile:

Marc

8

[From Bill Williams 14 January 2004 8:10 PM CST]

Mark says, [Marc Abrams (2004.01.14.2013)]

[From Bill williams 14 January 2003 4:00 PM CST]

  >But, the most important thing that a city that was friendly to
  >walking might do is provide an environment that would be a better
  >place for children.

You haven't spent too much time in NYC have you? :slight_smile:

I can't really answer your question before we reach an agreement
as to _how much time_ is "too much time" to spend in New York
City.

For you, I expect a lifetime wouldn't be too much. For me, while
NYC has some appealing features, there are also qualities that
the city does not have that I would miss. And, there are
qualities the city does have I'd rather not experience. So,
shorter time than your reference level.

So, I'm not in favor, even if it were possible-- which it isn't,
turning the world into NYC. I'll admit that you have a point. What
I'd like to have is the advantages of living in NYC without some of
the disadvantages. This wouldn't be inexpensive, but it wouldn't
have to be hightech, or cost trillions and trillions of dollars.

Bill Williams

···

from my standpoint _too much time_ in NYC is I am sure much

9

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1940 MST)]

Bill Williams 14 January 2003 4:00 PM CST--

  Rather than spend trillions and trillions and send two or three
  people to Mars, I would rather that the physical resources and
  labor be devoted to building a city in which it would be possible
  to walk to work, to see friends, and other stuff.

I would certainly like to live in a city like that. But first we have to
get people to want a city like that -- lots of people, not just a few
gentle souls who would be nice to other people no matter where they were.
It would be disheartening to build such a city and have it end up like
Brasilia, or covered with graffiti and broken glass.

My feeling is that we have to get people's gaze above the horizon. But
maybe that's just me. I have considered doing a lot of things, and have
concluded that working with PCT is probably the most useful thing I could
devote my time to, in the long run. So I have my own private journey to
Mars, to make life continue to seem worth putting some effort into. But too
many others have nothing at all.

Well, one man's dream is another's nightmare, I suppose. But I sort of have
in mind a nice city, not too big, where all the inhabitants get along, walk
to work, and get their exercise doing things like the 40-yard long jump. On
Mars.

Best,

Bill P.

10

[From Bill Williams 14 January 2003 10:00 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1940 MST)]

Bill Williams 14 January 2003 4:00 PM CST--

  Rather than spend trillions and trillions and send two or three
  people to Mars, I would rather that the physical resources and
  labor be devoted to building a city in which it would be possible
  to walk to work, to see friends, and other stuff.

I would certainly like to live in a city like that. But first we have to
get people to want a city like that -- lots of people, not just a few
gentle souls who would be nice to other people no matter where they were.
It would be disheartening to build such a city and have it end up like
Brasilia, or covered with graffiti and broken glass.

I would agree. But, there has been an ugly side to the manned space program. I'm not anti-technology-- not by any means, and sometimes Big Science may be the way to get things done. However, the people I've known that seemed to be doing worthwhile work in biology and physics have viewed the manned space projects as sucking the resources out of more useful small scale projects.

My feeling is that we have to get people's gaze above the horizon.

Tonight I talked to a family that planted their yard in buffalo grass this past summer. First time I've seen this done. The grass doesn't need nearly as much water as the European or eastern lawn grasses. It doesn't look like a putting green- which is OK by me. And, it doesn't require cutting nearly as often. It does turn brown in winter. But, again, I like the way it looks. The switch to such a grass could save a very large amount of water in the Western US. I think there is lots of stuff that could be done closer to home-- literally closer to home.

Well, one man's dream is another's nightmare, I suppose. But I sort of have
in mind a nice city, not too big, where all the inhabitants get along, walk
to work, and get their exercise doing things like the 40-yard long jump. On
Mars.

I think there may be an inter-generational issue here. But, I haven't seen the polls break-out public opinion on going to Mars by age groups. Like you say, "one man's dream is another's nightmare" and from what I hear, I wouldn't want to work inside NASA, and I don't want to pay for it. There is a difference between good engineering and bad engineering and it looks to me as if the Shuttle was a piece of bad engineering.

If you like your stuff above the horizon, I think the work of Burt Rutan is a better example of good engineering. As far as I know Rutan's craft that went supersonic a week or so ago, is the first private aircraft to have done so. Rutan's stuff I like.

Bill Williams

11

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.15.0801 MST)]

Bill Williams 14 January 2003 10:00 PM CST --

I would agree. But, there has been an ugly side to the manned space
program. I'm not anti-technology-- not by any means, and sometimes Big
Science may be the way to get things done. However, the people I've known
that seemed to be doing worthwhile work in biology and physics have viewed
the manned space projects as sucking the resources out of more useful
small scale projects.

And vice versa, I'm sure, However, I have to agree about the International
Space Station and the 100 or so Shuttle flights leading up to it. The
"science" has been pretty rudimentary and uninteresting to all but a very
few, and it doesn't look to improve much. The Earth survey stuff has
probably been very useful, but could have been done unmanned for a lot less
money.

I don't know if you've ever watched NASA TV. It has probably succeeded more
than any other NASA endeavour in making space flight boring (excepting a
few live events, and the current coverage of the boys and girls at JPL
managing their Mars Rover). The biggest problem with it is -- well, there
are so many I realize I can't pick a biggest. The educational programs are
full of adult and teenage actors simulating unreal enthusiasm for things
like paper airplanes that fly about three feet, and Newton's laws of
motion. The phoniness makes my teeth ache. Whoever runs it never seems to
look at what is being sent out to viewers -- the same clips run over and
over, and lately there have been commentators in the foreground talking
while someone is saying much more interesting things in the background --
at the same volume level, so neither is intelligible. The whole thing is so
dumbed down that it's obvious the people at NASA are out of their minds
with anxiety that they might seem too intelligent.

Yet there is the NASA Video File showing the latest findings from Hubble,
and Chandra, and a comet-sample mission, and the space infra-red telescope,
and the Galileo probe (dead now), and a lot of other wonderful stuff that
is going on, so one forgets the tedium that is the rest of the fare. Every
now and then the achievements stand out in all their glory, without the
unneeded hype, and the scientists being interviewed can't conceal their joy
and wonder at it all. Then spacefaring begins to look the way I have always
thought of it -- an incredible adventure as gripping as the polar
expeditions, the mountain climbs, the flights around the world, the
exploration of unknown territory that used to be possible on Earth when
there was somewhere new left to go.

Tonight I talked to a family that planted their yard in buffalo grass this
past summer. First time I've seen this done. The grass doesn't need nearly
as much water as the European or eastern lawn grasses. It doesn't look
like a putting green- which is OK by me. And, it doesn't require cutting
nearly as often. It does turn brown in winter. But, again, I like the way
it looks. The switch to such a grass could save a very large amount of
water in the Western US. I think there is lots of stuff that could be
done closer to home-- literally closer to home.

How nice. Yawn. Actually, we're doing the same thing here, but I can't
imagine making a career out of watching grass grow. Some people can, and
seem to like doing it, so they have a right to ask for a little support
from the rest of us. But all their efforts will be in vain if people don't
stop having so many babies, so the population experts deserve some support,
too. And so it goes, through a long list of worthy projects and human
interests. What's the matter with letting the adventurers have their share?

NASA's budget is something like $14 billion per year. That's 0.28% of a GDP
of 5 trillion dollars per year. Bush's daring proposals will raise that by
5%, to 0.294% And every cent of the money that is paid to NASA is returned
to the economy through the salaries of NASA employees and the income paid
to NASA suppliers, who pay it to _their_ suppliers, employees, and
investors. The money doesn't go away; it just takes a detour that puts a
lot of people to work and creates customers with money to spend in the rest
of the economy -- even money to spend on buffalo grass and model cities. I
don't see a big reallocation of resources here. In fact, putting money in
people's pockets might even help create more resources.

What puzzles me is that industry will jump on the DVD bandwagon in
anticipation of a multi-billion-dollar market, yet hesistates to jump into
a multi-trillion-dollar market of at least comparable worth to the human race.

I think there may be an inter-generational issue here.

Yeah, it's strange, since I'm suppose to be the conservative old
stay-at-home fogey and you're supposed to be the hot-headed youth burning
for excitement.

...from what I hear, I wouldn't want to work inside NASA, and I don't want
to pay for it.

I don't mind paying a quarter of a percent of my income for NASA,
considering the good things that have come of it, and I don't think that
many people have suffered because of that. But I agree that there are few
places in that organization where I would like to work. But there are a few.

  There is a difference between good engineering and bad engineering and
it looks to me as if the Shuttle was a piece of bad engineering.

It was a guess, since nobody had done it before. But as astronauts and test
pilots like to joke, we have to remember that these vehicles in which
people risk their lives were built by the lowest bidder. Perkin-Elmer tried
to cut costs to keep their profits up by eliminating one last supposedly
redundant optical test, and the Hubble telescope went up in a
next-to-useless condition. A spacer was put into the optical test bench
upside down when the final figuring was done. Bad engineering or bad luck,
the eliminated test would have caught the error.

I don't think NASA is any worse off technically than industry in general --
the Shuttle was, after all, designed and build by commercial companies.

If you like your stuff above the horizon, I think the work of Burt Rutan
is a better example of good engineering. As far as I know Rutan's craft
that went supersonic a week or so ago, is the first private aircraft to
have done so. Rutan's stuff I like.

I like it too. But flying around and around the world in the atmosphere
doesn't grab me any more than flying around and around the world in a
vacuum does. I'd rather we were going somewhere.

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.15)]

<Bill Powers (2004.01.15.0801 MST)>

<But as astronauts and test
pilots like to joke, we have to remember that these vehicles in which
people risk their lives were built by the lowest bidder. Perkin-Elmer tried
to cut costs to keep their profits up by eliminating one last supposedly
redundant optical test, and the Hubble telescope went up in a
next-to-useless condition. A spacer was put into the optical test bench
upside down when the final figuring was done. Bad engineering or bad luck, the eliminated test would have caught the error.>

I am going from recollection, and it has been awhile, but I think the situation was actually a bit different.

a) NASA picked Perkins-Elmer’s bid that did not include an on-ground test over a competitor’s bid which did. P-E apparently convinced NASA that no such test was needed. The wiser competitor would not do the work w/o the test and lost the award.

b) Then, P-E had a quality failure, a tiny defect re the spacer as you suggested. Not testing on the ground, the Hubble was launched into space defective and the repair cost was gargantuan compared to what it would have cost to fix the spacer on the earth.

So, it is in quality speak a combination of a management failure (not accepting the bidder who insisted on the ground test) combined with a rather tiny manufacturing error in a very sensitive piece of equipment where the failure costs were enormous.

Of course, had the tiny manufacturing error been prevented, the fact that no final optical test was done, would probably not have mattered. So, Mr. PCT, which is the wise and least costly way to ensure quality? a) Use a proven, essentially defect free production system where the spacer is almost certainly installed correctly.

b) Conduct an expensive on-ground optical test, just in case.

c) Do both, as best you can

d) Have some NASA managers educated in quality and reliability who can look at the facts and make a a proper quality management decision where failure is less than 1 in 10,000

e) Soak the tax payers if anything goes wrong. Who can expect perfection? Apply the Challenger and Columbia disaster theory of human error and chance as an excuse.

Just having some fun as I contemplate the reasons and value of going to Mars under the guidance of NASA executives who keep doing things wrong when addressing quality.

13

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.15.1540 MST)]

Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.15)--

a) NASA picked Perkins-Elmer's bid that did not include an on-ground test
over a competitor's bid which did. P-E apparently convinced NASA that no
such test was needed. The wiser competitor would not do the work w/o the
test and lost the award.

b) Then, P-E had a quality failure, a tiny defect re the spacer as you
suggested. Not testing on the ground, the Hubble was launched into space
defective and the repair cost was gargantuan compared to what it would
have cost to fix the spacer on the earth.

I think that's essentially right. What I read here and there was that the
spacer was made correctly, but its design was such that it could be put
into the text fixture either end up -- and only one way was right. It was
like a pin with a collar around its middle, but off-center toward one end.

Just having some fun as I contemplate the reasons and value of going to
Mars under the guidance of NASA executives who keep doing things wrong
when addressing quality.

I just finished watching bits of Sean O'Keefe telling a paralyzed roomful
of NASA employees what Bush's project was going to mean to NASA. I say bits
because it was the most excruciatingly boring, content-free talk I have
ever heard from anyone. The man is dangerous to mental health, not to
mention Moon voyages. He talked for an hour and a half, and said very
nearly nothing, Awful.

Best,

Bill P.

14

[From Bill Williams 15 January 2003 9:40 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.15.1540 MST)]

I just finished watching bits of Sean O'Keefe telling a paralyzed roomful
of NASA employees what Bush's project was going to mean to NASA. I say bits
because it was the most excruciatingly boring, content-free talk I have
ever heard from anyone. The man is dangerous to mental health, not to
mention Moon voyages. He talked for an hour and a half, and said very
nearly nothing, Awful.

I agree. An accomplished professional manager ought to be able to
speak for at least two hours and say absoutely nothing. "Nearly
nothing" just isn't going to cut it.

And, I would suggest lots of practice with three shells and a pea.

Bill Williams

15

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.16.1955CDT]

Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1126 MST)]

....
But back to the question. I'm not sure at all how many other people share
my interest, but one of my main reasons for supporting space exploration is
that life here on Earth is getting duller and more disappointing by the
year, and I think we really need some interests beyond plowing up
wilderness, crashing cars, blowing things up, killing people, making
immense amounts of money, looking down on people who are Not Like Us, and
laughing at potty jokes. I think people can actually rise to challenges
that involve them in big adventuresome projects, even without T&A. I think
that going to the Moon and Mars is a big adventuresome project. It will do
poor people as much good as most of the other things we're spending
collective money on.

However, I think that the whole project would fare better under a
Democratic administration. Tax-and-spend at least distributes the money a
little more evenly than borrow-and-spend does.

I share that interest, and want to endorse those views.

Best,

Dick R.

···
16

[From Bill Williams 16 January 2004 12:00]

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.16.1955CDT]

Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1126 MST)]

[Going to Mars] will do poor people as much good as most of the
other things we're spending collective money on.

I share that interest, and want to endorse those views.

Best,

Dick R.

Dick, would you say that money spent on Going to Mars-- that is sending some people to Mars, and hopefully bringing them back, would do more good for a poor child than providing the poor child with basic medical and dental care?

That is dollar for dollar would the expenditure on going to Mars generate a result that is of equal value to that which might be spent on poor children in need of basic medical services? Is this the conclusion that you've reached regarding the comparative values of the two alternative uses of a dollar of government expenditure?

Bill Williams

17

[Martin Taylor 2004.01.17.1456]

[From Bill Williams 16 January 2004 12:00]
would the expenditure on going to Mars generate a result that is of
equal value to that which might be spent on poor children in need of
basic medical services? Is this the conclusion that you've reached
regarding the comparative values of the two alternative uses of a
dollar of government expenditure?

I think there is a misconception. It is only if the government
arbitrarily decides that there is s spending box that a dollar spent
on one project is a dollar less for other projects. As Bill P keeps
pointing out, the dollar spent on even the most useless
dig-a-hole-and-fill-it project goes into the pockets of the workers
(who may be the very poor about whom you are concerned). They spend
those dollars on other things, allowing more people to be employed,
and generating more taxes that allow the government to spend more on
other direct projects.

On the other hand, if resources (as opposed to money) are limited,
then spending on Space exploration could indeed detract from spending
on "poor children." By resources, I mean employable persons, raw
materials, know-how, and the like--things that can be bought with
money, if they are there to be bought.

It's the orthodox economists against whom you rail that argue that
there is a limited number of dollars, and that what is spent on one
project is simply gone, and therefore is unavailable to spend on
another project.

Martin

18

[From Bill Williams 17 January 2004 2:15 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2004.01.17.1456]

[From Bill Williams 16 January 2004 12:00]
would the expenditure on going to Mars generate a result that is of
equal value to that which might be spent on poor children in need of
basic medical services? Is this the conclusion that you've reached
regarding the comparative values of the two alternative uses of a
dollar of government expenditure?

-I think there is a misconception. It is only if the government
-arbitrarily decides that there is s spending box that a dollar spent
-on one project is a dollar less for other projects. As Bill P keeps
-pointing out, the dollar spent on even the most useless
-dig-a-hole-and-fill-it project goes into the pockets of the workers
-(who may be the very poor about whom you are concerned). They spend
-those dollars on other things, allowing more people to be employed,
-and generating more taxes that allow the government to spend more on
-other direct projects.

There one thing about which there should be little or no doubt-- there isn't any shortage of misconceptions. But, I'm not sure what point you are attepting to make in the above. What you are saying is either so obvious or so profound that I'm not sure why it is being said.

-On the other hand, if resources (as opposed to money) are limited,
-then spending on Space exploration could indeed detract from spending
-on "poor children." By resources, I mean employable persons, raw
-materials, know-how, and the like--things that can be bought with
-money, if they are there to be bought.

If "trillions and trillions" are being spent on "manned" space exploration, then it seems reasonable to think that real resources might be a limiting factor.

-It's the orthodox economists against whom you rail that argue that
-there is a limited number of dollars, and that what is spent on one
-project is simply gone, and therefore is unavailable to spend on
-another project.

Just too be sure, I looked up "rail." One of the meanings was "scold." I'll admit to that. You don't really think I'm worried about there being "a limited number of dollars" or do you?

I'm not opposed to space exploration itself. I'm actually in favor of mildly increasing expenditures for things like telescopes, both on the ground and in space, and robot probes and so forth. But, I do think the manned space program has been pretty much a waste. At least that's what friends who are involved in what seem to me to be genuinely scientific work tell me.

They say their work is being curtailed because as they say it, "the money's being sucked into Flash Gordon adventure/fantasy schemes." I call it the Andy Worhall version of science-- you get to stand on Mars, wave and yak at folks back on Earth. In case anyone's interested you could with friend and a video camera go to Arizona and stand on some pink sand dunes and do about the same thing on the cheap. THis is going to be good for about 15 minutes or so. Before we spend about a trillion a minute for this sort of info/tainment, which I don't plan on watching-- since I haven't owned a television for decades, I think there are things here at home in the real world that need fixing.

Perhaps it might be better if I modified my argument and frame it this way. As I understand it, at least as I read the news, the Mars project will result in cut backs for things like telescopes in space (maintaince and resupply for Hubble), and other good stuff. And, Since I'm in favor of science in space I am opposed to spending money on space adventures.

Will you forgive me for thinking briefly about children who are hungry?

Bill Williams

19

[From Bill Williams 17 January 2004 2:15 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2004.01.17.1456]

[From Bill Williams 16 January 2004 12:00]
  would the expenditure on going to Mars generate a result that is of
equal value to that which might be spent on poor children in need of
basic medical services? Is this the conclusion that you've reached
regarding the comparative values of the two alternative uses of a
dollar of government expenditure?

-I think there is a misconception. It is only if the government
-arbitrarily decides that there is s spending box that a dollar spent
-on one project is a dollar less for other projects. As Bill P keeps
-pointing out, the dollar spent on even the most useless
-dig-a-hole-and-fill-it project goes into the pockets of the workers
-(who may be the very poor about whom you are concerned). They spend
-those dollars on other things, allowing more people to be employed,
-and generating more taxes that allow the government to spend more on
-other direct projects.

There one thing about which there should be little or no doubt--
there isn't any shortage of misconceptions. But, I'm not sure what
point you are attepting to make in the above. What you are saying is
either so obvious or so profound that I'm not sure why it is being
said.

I have thought for years that it is obvious, but it seems to be
denied by all the political commentators and economists who advise
finance ministers.

I'm not opposed to space exploration itself. I'm actually in favor
of mildly increasing expenditures for things like telescopes, both
on the ground and in space, and robot probes and so forth. But, I
do think the manned space program has been pretty much a waste. At
least that's what friends who are involved in what seem to me to be
genuinely scientific work tell me.

They say their work is being curtailed because as they say it, "the
money's being sucked into Flash Gordon adventure/fantasy schemes."

And they are right, because the political climate says that money
spent on manned space will be money not spent on unmanned space or on
reducing on-earth poverty. My point was simply that thei is a human
political choice, not a law of economics, no matter what the
economists tell the politicians.

.., I think there are things here at home in the real world that need fixing.

There sure are! amd the more governments help money to circulate from
the rich to the poor and back again to the rich, the sooner they will
get fixed. Let the _real_ limits be the ones that affect us, not the
artificial ones imposed by dogma.

I'm not sure why you say it's so obvious that the limit isn't in the
money, and then say somethinglike this. I do know that I cut in my
quote a bit about if there's so many trillions spent on space, it
will mean that real resource will reach their limits. I don't think
the kinds of resources that will be limited by space exploration are
the kinds required by the kids, so I think even there you are
applealing to the illusory limits on available money--treating money
as if it were a stock rather than a flow, to use SD terminology.

Perhaps it might be better if I modified my argument and frame it
this way. As I understand it, at least as I read the news, the Mars
project will result in cut backs for things like telescopes in space
(maintaince and resupply for Hubble), and other good stuff. And,
Since I'm in favor of science in space I am opposed to spending
money on space adventures.

I'm opposed to limiting the money spent on space by doing that kind
of zero-sum game.

Will you forgive me for thinking briefly about children who are hungry?

You aren't the only one who thinks of them. But we do seem to differ
on ways to help them. I think spending trillions on getting humanity
able to live off this planet will have both a long-term and a short
term benefit for those children. You think spending the money on
space means it will not be spent on children, and you may be right.
What I say is that if you are right, it will be because of choice by
a few decision-makers, not because it must be so.

What I would like to get across to all those levels of government is
what you, up top, say (and I agree) is so obvious.

Martin

20

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.17.2100CDT]

"Williams, William D." wrote:

[From Bill Williams 16 January 2004 12:00]

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.16.1955CDT]

Bill Powers wrote:

> [From Bill Powers (2004.01.14.1126 MST)]

>[Going to Mars] will do poor people as much good as most of the
>other things we're spending collective money on.
>
I share that interest, and want to endorse those views.

Dick, would you say that money spent on Going to Mars-- that is sending some people to Mars, and hopefully bringing them back, would do more good for a poor child than providing the poor child with basic medical and dental care?

No, you've almost got me there, Bill. But, though I think enormous amounts of currently wasted funds, tax breaks to the richest (including some like Soros, and Gates Sr. who have themselves said they don't need it) could be better used to take care of kids, provide health care for everybody in the country, etc., what I would do is
move space exploration to the next highest priority behind health and environment improvement.

That is dollar for dollar would the expenditure on going to Mars generate a result that is of equal value to that which might be spent on poor children in need of basic medical services? Is this the conclusion that you've reached regarding the comparative values of the two alternative uses of a dollar of government expenditure?

In the long run, quite possibly, in the same sense that the people on the Mayflower could reasonably have used the money they spent on the trip to better effect in the short run.

Best, Dick R.