Because it is there?

[From Bill Williams 18 January 2004 10:40 PM CST]

Martin,

I don't think the trade-off between the man space program and space science is a zero sum game, I think it is a negative sum game.

I think the resources, the resources now availible at the current state of technology could support most of things I'd like to see done for poor children at least in the United States, and a space sciences program. I have doubts about a Mars program and fixing stuff that I feel is of more urgency here on earth.

In the current scheme of things, the manned program is being used as an excuse to justify abandoning Hubble. There might be good reasons for this but at least some of the people involved are angry. There are also people who say Hubble's had its day, but I've never heard that any viewing time, Hubble's that is, was going to waste. So, I suspect that it may be possible that the people saying that it is time to junk Hubble are hired hands telling us what they have been told to tell us.

I don't know that we are in anything approaching complete agreement regarding economic issues, but I will say if people in the sciences would take the time to understand what you understand I think there might be less opposition to science programs.

Bill Williams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Martin Taylor
Sent: Sun 1/18/2004 8:24 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Because it is there?

[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

[From Bill Williams 18 January 2004 10:55 PM CST]

Dick,

You make the argument that _perhaps_ the Manned Mars project might have a higher payoff than immeadiate comprehensive medical care,

"... 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.

I'll admitt that their is a possiblity that you could be right. I don't see anyway to rule what you say out, its a matter of opinion.

However, I would point out that in the case of the Mayflower they were on a journey to save their souls. And, in regard to more mundane considerations, they were on a trip to a world in which they believed that they could support themselves once they arrived. In order for human beings to support themselves on the Moon or Mars there is going to have to be a _lot_ of technological progress. We'll need something like cold-fusion, or some energy breakthrough as a result of condensed-matter physics. If the economic viablity of the Mars project-- undertaken now-- were somewhat close to comparable to the case of the Mayflower trip, I'd say go for it.

Bill Williams

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.19.1830CDT]

"Williams, William D." wrote:

[From Bill Williams 18 January 2004 10:55 PM CST]

Dick,

You make the argument that _perhaps_ the Manned Mars project might have a higher payoff than immeadiate comprehensive medical care,

"... 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.

I'll admitt that their is a possiblity that you could be right. I don't see anyway to rule what you say out, its a matter of opinion.

OK, I can agree to that.

However, I would point out that in the case of the Mayflower they were on a journey to save their souls.

Yes, I thought about that too, and wondered if that made the similie
incomparable. However, on further thought I decided it doesn't. My
great grandchildren might well prefer to have more than one alternative
for saving their souls other than becoming muslim.

And, in regard to more mundane considerations, they were on a trip to a world in which they believed that they could support themselves once they arrived. In order for human beings to support themselves on the Moon or Mars there is going to have to be a _lot_ of technological progress. We'll need something like cold-fusion, or some energy breakthrough as a result of condensed-matter physics. If the economic viablity of the Mars project-- undertaken now-- were somewhat close to comparable to the case of the Mayflower trip, I'd say go for it.

Based on my assessment of past history of big projects like Manhattan,
etc., I'm inclined to think that the tech breakthroughs are more likely
facilitated by the energy going into some major effort, but I'm glad to
see that we aren't completely in disagreement about our priorities.

Best,

Dick R.

[From Bill Williams 20 January 2004 11:03 PM CST]

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.19.1830CDT]

However, I would point out that in the case of the
Mayflower they were on a journey to save their souls.

Yes, I thought about that too, and wondered if that
made the similie incomparable. However, on further
thought I decided it doesn't. My great grandchildren
might well prefer to have more than one alternative
for saving their souls other than becoming muslim.

Based upon recent American military performance in
the field, I'm not worried about the short-run. And,
based upon the muslims I've gotten to know rather well,
I doubt that the faith is going to provide a good
basis for the sort of science and technology that will
dominate future military conflicts.

Veblen (1906) in his essay and book _The Place of
Science_ says,

   "...the peculiar excellence of the modern culture
    is of such a nature as to give it a decisive
    practical advantage over all other cultural
    schemes that have gone before or that have come
    into competition with it. It has proved itself
    fit to survive in a struggle for existence as
    against those civilizations which differ from it
    in respect of its distinctive traits." p. 1.

Among the distinctive traits, of "the modern culture"
according to Veblen is a "matter-of-fact" approach to
problems.

I personally like the Arab/Muslim students I've gotten
to know. I do, however, find some of the assumptions that
at least some of them make-- such as they must obtain
nuclear weapons a bit disconcerting.

If you are concerned about the prospect of Christian or
Western European civilization's future in competition
with an Arabic/Muslim society, you might find

     Hanson, Victor Davis. 2OO2 _Carnage and Culture:
       Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power_
         New York: Anchor

a very interesting read. I don't entirely find Hanson's
point of view appealing, but his basic argument, that a
democratic, factual, pragmatic people have an enourmous
advantage in warfare persuasive. The advantage obviously
isn't a magical advantage. But, I think Hanson's argument
is basically correct. So, while I think that there are
things we should worry about, I am confident that your
great-grandchildren will be able to capably defend
themselves-- and not merely in regard to military
engagements.

Bill Williams

Richard K,

if the way I have formated the above text is still
annoying say so. I'll check the CSGnet archive, maybe
I'll get an idea there as to what to avoid.

[From Dick Robertson,2004.22,0640CDT]

"Williams, William D." wrote:

[From Bill Williams 20 January 2004 11:03 PM CST]

[From Dick Robertson,2004.01.19.1830CDT]

>>However, I would point out that in the case of the
>>Mayflower they were on a journey to save their souls.

>Yes, I thought about that too, and wondered if that
>made the similie incomparable. However, on further
>thought I decided it doesn't. My great grandchildren
>might well prefer to have more than one alternative
>for saving their souls other than becoming muslim.

Based upon recent American military performance in
the field, I'm not worried about the short-run. And,
based upon the muslims I've gotten to know rather well,
I doubt that the faith is going to provide a good
basis for the sort of science and technology that will
dominate future military conflicts.

I wouldn't expect that. I would expect the West to be overcome by
demographics, not military might per se, although they are not unrelated
in the final analysis.

Veblen (1906) in his essay and book _The Place of
Science_ says,

   "...the peculiar excellence of the modern culture
    is of such a nature as to give it a decisive
    practical advantage over all other cultural
    schemes that have gone before or that have come
    into competition with it. It has proved itself
    fit to survive in a struggle for existence as
    against those civilizations which differ from it
    in respect of its distinctive traits." p. 1.

Compare Oswald Spengler on the decline of the West, or in my book.

Among the distinctive traits, of "the modern culture"
according to Veblen is a "matter-of-fact" approach to
problems.

So far so good, but how far does that go?

I personally like the Arab/Muslim students I've gotten
to know. I do, however, find some of the assumptions that
at least some of them make-- such as they must obtain
nuclear weapons a bit disconcerting.

Um hm.

If you are concerned about the prospect of Christian or
Western European civilization's future in competition
with an Arabic/Muslim society, you might find

     Hanson, Victor Davis. 2OO2 _Carnage and Culture:
       Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power_
         New York: Anchor

Thanks for the reference. I f I can get a look at it, I will compare it
with
Jessica Stern's Terror in the Name of God, that I just picked up from
our library.

a very interesting read. I don't entirely find Hanson's
point of view appealing, but his basic argument, that a
democratic, factual, pragmatic people have an enourmous
advantage in warfare persuasive. The advantage obviously
isn't a magical advantage. But, I think Hanson's argument
is basically correct. So, while I think that there are
things we should worry about, I am confident that your
great-grandchildren will be able to capably defend
themselves-- and not merely in regard to military
engagements.

While the United States was a democracy, I would have subscribed
heartily to that. Think Xenophon and Xerxes, for example.

I'm going to be out of town for the next two weeks.

Best,

Dick R.

···

[From Bill Williams 7 Feburary 2004 1:30 AM CST]

An analysis of the Mars program by a pro.

     Dave Barry: To infinity and beyond! Bush's mission
     to Mars
     Dave Barry The Miami Herald
     Friday, February 6, 2004

    MIAMI Should we go to Mars? I don't mean personally, of course. I, for one, am
    unable to go to Mars because of a dental appointment. But should humans, in general,
    go to Mars?

    As you know, the idea of a Mars mission was proposed recently by President George
    "W" Bush. What happened was, one evening he and his staff were sitting around the
    Oval Office, trying to think of something for the nation to do, and they got to looking
    out the window at the vastness of the night sky, and the president suddenly said: "Hey,
    we should go to � to � whaddyacallit!"

    The president actually was thinking of a Chinese restaurant on Wisconsin Avenue, but
    before he could clarify this, his staff had worked out this whole big Mars mission. So
    he figured, what the hey.

    This is not a new dream. As long as humanity has been human, it has looked toward
    the heavens and dreamed that some day, some way, there would be giant federal
    contracts involved. And there has always been a particular fascination with Mars, the
    fourth planet from the sun, unless we count Marlon Brando.

    Mars - sometimes called "The Red Planet," because it appears, to the naked eye, to
    be orange - gets its name from the ancient Greek or Roman name "Mars," meaning
    "Mars." The planet has long captured the popular imagination, because for many years,
    people believed that Martians might live there, based on the fact that there are canals,
    which suggests the presence of boats, and, in the words of the late Carl Sagan: "If
    there are boats, then there would have to be somebody to fix them."

    In 1938, Orson Welles did a radio "news" broadcast, based on "The War of the
    Worlds," about invading Martians landing in the town of Grovers Mill, New Jersey.
    The broadcast created a nationwide panic, although it was, of course, a hoax: The
    Martians actually landed in Philadelphia, where many still reside, as evidenced by U.S.
    Senator Arlen Specter.

    Today we are pretty sure that nobody lives on Mars, at least not year-round. We base
    this on the fact that NASA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars sending unmanned
    probes up there, and they have sent back thousands of pictures, all of them showing:
    rocks. Granted, there was one picture where, if you magnified the background, you
    could just make out a sign that said "PALM SPRINGS 47 MILES." But a NASA
    spokesperson quickly explained that this was "an optical illusion, caused by, um,
    hydrogen."

    As I write these words, we have yet another probe scooting around on Mars, and it
    has been sending back exquisitely detailed photographs of: rocks. At this point, I, for
    one, am willing to stipulate that Mars is, basically, covered with rocks, but our space
    scientists apparently do not intend to stop until they obtain photographs of every last
    one of them.

    Which leads us to the president's plan for getting to Mars, which consists of four
    stages:

    STAGE ONEWe set up a base on the moon, which has less gravity than Earth,
    because it is farther away.

    STAGE TWOWe build a rocket up there, using cheap local labor.

    STAGE THREEAstronauts get into the rocket, blast off from the moon, and fly back
    to Earth, where they go to a Wal-Mart and stock up on supplies, especially
    deodorant.

    STAGE FOURThey blast off again, and, after a difficult, tedious and extremely
    dangerous six-month space voyage, arrive - if all goes well - on Mars, where they find:
    rocks. So the benefits are obvious. But what about the costs? The Bush administration
    says the Mars mission can be accomplished for only 143.8 zillion dollars, but critics
    claim that the true cost is likely to be much more like 687 fillion dillion dollars. (These
    numbers are imaginary, but trust me, they're as accurate as any other cost estimates
    you see about the Mars mission.)

    The question is, could this money be better spent? We have many urgent needs right
    here on Earth. What about the elderly? What about the young people? Could we
    maybe kill two birds with one stone here and send the elderly and young people to
    Mars? Will the young people want special "low rider" astronaut pants with the waist at
    roughly knee level?

    These are indeed complex issues, and clearly what we need, if we are to resolve them,
    is a serious and sustained national dialogue on our priorities and our goals. You start!
    I'll be at the dentist."

brought to you by

Bill Williams