"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48da7dae@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > * Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of
this
> > magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit, why
not
> > suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give much
bigger
> > and surer yields.

>   Do you have some kind of difficulty in understanding the concept of
> *one* example of a potential benefit, and that *one* example does not mean
> it's the *only* example?
>
>   Pouring all the 10 billion dollars on one single application would be
> a huge waste of money. Pouring it into experimentation which may produce
> dozens of applications is more beneficial.

Yet, you fail to provide even a *single* potential benefit. My challenge
stands.

> > * Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs)
are/were
> > huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it, we would
have
> > visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was one-upmanship, clear and
> > simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a
result
> > is NASA trying to save face.

>   Yeah, right. The manned space exploration programs did not induce
> technology which is nowadays used to launch satellites to orbit and keep
> them there.

No. Satellites falls into "unmanned" space exploration. I specifically made
a distinction: Unamanned=good, manned=bad. The fringe benefits of manned
exploration to unmanned is not worth carrying out manned exploration. Spend
that money on unmanned, and you can launch 10 times more satellites.

Post a reply to this message