Kuperberg probably doesn’t think I qualify as “reasonable people” but his starting his post with the words “Rand’s comment is a..” certainly made me think he was talking about you.

At any rate, he was (by his own definition at least) the first to make an “ad hominem characterization” so I find it ironic that he’d accuse anyone else of the same.

You made statements in response to my comments from which most reasonable people would infer that you were talking about me. I was simply responding, and pointing out that they are false.

I never said that you personally did support them.

I am definitely a small-government proponent (thought that doesn’t mean, your polemics aside, that I don’t think that the government is responsible for national defense, nor need it).

Good for you.

Now, are any of these ad hominem characterizations necessary?

I must have missed the part where I stated my support for unfunded mandates, Greg. Do you have any other amusing delusions about me?

I am definitely a small-government proponent (thought that doesn’t mean, your polemics aside, that I don’t think that the government is responsible for national defense, nor need it).

So we should sell the public on the other benefits of space. Particular those intrests with some political pull. Which (Shameles plug warning) is the goal of the book I have begun writing: Two Shades of Green. I figure I’m about a month from the first draft of the first chapter.

I have nothing more to add that I haven’t already said, so, all I can say is, I disagree. One way or the other, history will tell us who is right.

There is a reason NASA sells the space station as science. They can’t think of anything for astronauts to do in space other than (a) keep themselves alive, and (b) run science experiments. And not for lack of trying. They imposed the space shuttle on the Pentagon, until eventually the Pentagon shook it off. They tried to sell space shuttle capacity, but they could only do it at a big loss. They talk about space colonization, but they don’t actually plan any. Science, that is to say Potemkin science, is the only end mission left.

You may think that reason (a) stands by itself, but neither Congress nor NASA is satisfied with it. So I think that your political calculation is wrong. I think that if the veneer of science were truly stripped away from human spaceflight at NASA, even Congress would no longer bother.

I agree with you that the Space Station should have been sold for what it really was — and probably would have garnered greater support if it had been. Where I disagree with you is the perceived lack of other value in the project, and that “science” per se should be the primary goal of the civilian government space program, rather than an important secondary goal.

— Donald

Why can’t Congress take “no” for an answer?

— Donald