Scucca

I'm not convinced with that argument. Finding means for innovation is a good thing for us all. I'm just not sure, given I'm not a scientist, of the extent that space exploration will deliver it.

__________________

UtahBill

We have gotten some nice spinoffs, but it goes the other way as well. Some civilian discoveries and inventions have helped NASA.
Seems to me that a lot of the money gets wasted. Ever hear the one about the space pen? Writes underwater, in a vacuum, any position, etc.
The Russians just use pencils, saved them a lot of money...

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

Scucca

I certainly still see private-public alliances as the nature of the beast. I also expect waste and profiteering. However, those spin-offs are vital!

I believe thats an urban legend. We have a comedy programme called IQ that dismissed it reasonably recently

UtahBill

Could be, but we really did have very expensive hammers and coffee pots in the military. In my first civilian job at a nuclear test reactor, I overheard engineers admitting that they had tested some things far beyond the needed data collection, and proof, but had some money left, so they were going to spend it on more testing.....

Scucca

It can become a waste worth paying. The alternative, with insufficient R&D and technical progress, just isn't then attractive enough. But can we assume sufficiently limited output?

UtahBill

I am all for subsidizing invention and innovation, but at a reasonable level and it must show results, or at least a very good chance for progress, or get sidetracked.
Historically speaking, a lot of invention and discovery was done with little or no reward for the people doing it. Some of us just love to discover.....
Not suggesting we go that far back, but the wasted time and money in some of our projects could be put to better use working more on our energy issues.

Scucca

What criteria would you employ? Technical progress would surely include a strategy that included projects with limited chances of success (thus avoiding the short termism encouraged by the profit motive). Perhaps a grand plan to ensure proper co-ordination? (e.g. man on mars)

UtahBill

Projects such as manned mission to Mars, IMO, are a waste of today's money. Unmanned missions will serve the needs for Mars exploration for the next 50 years at least...maybe 150....we have pressing needs at home that should be addressed for the next 50 years.

Scucca

Technical progress is a "pressing need". The complexities of a manned mission would widen the opportunities of delivering that progress. I don't see it as waste (particularly for the EU, given it would lead to more effective non-military expenditure)

UtahBill

I would hope that the cost would be spread around the world, to those countries that can contribute....
But from what I hear, we already have most of the technology in place, when it comes to equipment. It will be us fragile humans that become the limiting factor.