in the end, they all really want to be like JFK.

In the end they all will be.

Yow, snarky.

Besides, an extra $ 650 million a year to keep America striving for the frontier is, literally, chicken feed.

The only way we will ever have a viable space program is to eliminate NASA and abrogate the treaties concerning commercial exploitation of space. When a space version of the Dutch East India Company can be a profitable venture, we'll be all over the galaxy.

The House is a submissive extension of the Executive. It does the woman's work of government, like symbolic gestures standing by the admin's window dressing. But who knows in this case.

Right now, the money in space is in launching satellites, tourism, and power generation, all of which can legally be done by private parties.

The first is big business for private parties, the second has a few players, including an outfit being advertised as a premium membership reward by a major credit card issuer.

NASA is the big player now because no private party is willing to pony up $ 600 million for a Mars probe with a one in three chance of failure.

The treaties concerning the commercial exploitation of space are moot once you get out of Earth's orbit.

Get to Mars, claim it for bart, and it's yours until the Earthlings manage to kick you off, which could be never.

Same for the Moon.

Michael,

Those treaties matter if you want to take the stuff you find or manufacture in space back to Earth and sell it.

Right now we are at a similar point as weh we sent caravelles across the Atlantic Ocean for the first time. In those days, the royal families had great fortunes which they used to sponsor expeditions which were then personally rewarding to them. Columbus et al did not claim the New World for 'Spain', they did so for the Royal Family of Castille. Even Aragonese were barred. If we had people of similar relative means today who saw space exploration as a means of making huge amounts of cash, we could have the same kind of advancement.

oj. When you say, "they all will be" do you mean they'll all be dead? Am I finally getting it, or do you have some other, less obvious meaning?

About space. Of course, it should be open to free exploration. Isn't that what our country is all about. We have thrown off our yoke of aping the Soviets with constrictive laws and treaties.

lonbud, it might be a good idea to read up on Kennendy's brief, but disastrous presidency?

Sorry, of course that should be Kennedy. Any reverential reference to those years makes me see red because it so perfectly illustrates the bad old days of media control over information.

Camelot, a fantasy written and directed by an adoring media and their co-illusionists in Hollywood for the consumption of those who want to believe in myths.

Right now most of the federal funding should be going into development of a next generation orbiter, something that can get a heavy payload into orbit cheaply, frequently and reliably. Once that has been accomplished, then the private investment will pour into space projects.

bart:

Although I agree that the treaties matter, it's only insomuch as the price of your space assets are reduced by having to sell them covertly.

If you bring something of value back to Earth, I guarantee that it can be sold, regardless of legality.

If you were to produce a cure for cancer in your illegally constructed more or less zero-grav, oxygen-free lunar research facility, I guarantee you that the US, the UN and especially the EU would bar you from selling it on Earth.

Look at the nonsense over GM foods. Luddite UN and EU attempts at its illegalization are starving millions of people in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

We will of course put anti- anti-satellite defense devices on our 51st state.

Why are GM vegetables unacceptable--but not GM humans? We don't trust Nike to manufacture shoes humanely...but we'll trust businesses to manufacture humans humanely?

JFK was both a perv and a patriot. Today's Dems are halfway there.

We'll bring stuff back from space to sell right after we bring back those manganese nodules on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

In other words, never.

Of course, in Harryese never means his own lifetime, so he's right.

And in Orrinese "permanent" means 50 to 70 years.

jefferson:

Yes. It's been common in American politics to speak of things like the permanent Republican presidency even though a Carter or a Clinton wins on occassion. It's a term of art. Similarly, Harry only believes in things he's personally observed (or read and believed) and anything he has observed is true everywhere. It's all art.

For once, I have to agree 100% with bart.

Mr. Duquette;

If insanity is doing the same things over and expecting different results, what is the mental state of someone advocating that the government (in essence, NASA) develop an economical and reliable heavy lift vehicle?

Note that in the early days of air travel, the government didn't develop planes. The government paid for the results of doing useful things with planes (such as, delivering mail). Why this isn't used as a model for space travel escapes me, unless it's simply reflexive Sovietism.

erp: the myth of kennedy and camelot is no more divorced from the reality of the times it describes than is the entire notion of the united states as the repository of everything good and free and worthwhile in the history of mankind.

and i should add, especially, no more than the myth of ronald reagan and what will one day be the myth of george w. bush.

JFK believed the notion.

Governments funded every significant exploration of the past six hundred years at least.

The U.S. is the repository of everything good and free and worthwhile in the history of humankind.

It isn't the sole repository, but it is the main one.

oj,

'Governments' didn't. Royal families did. Spain did not fund Columbus and the conquistadores, they were paid for out of the purse of the Castille royal family. The 'Belgian Congo' belonged to Leopold not to Belgium.

l'etat was them.

Mr. Judd;

But did Lewis and Clark used government designed, developed and built wagons? Guns? Food supplies? Coats? etc.? Or did the feds just put up some cash and let L&C get what they needed from the private sector?

Their main transport was a government product.

OJ,

It very much wasn't. Sure, they could grab money from their estates and pay for things, but not from the national treasury which was not their plaything. That was why they had to do things like sell 'subscriptions' and create agencies like the Dutch East India Corporation.

If it was just a matter of the Treasury, the HRE would have ruled the world.

OJ:

Yes, I'm well aware of Harry's unfortunate habit of citing personal experiences as his proof of universal truths. OTOH, this "term of art" explanation of yours is pure gold. I only wish I knew what that phrase meant back when my law professors used it. Now if you could only shed light on the meaning of their other favorite phrase,"stare decisus", my joy will be complete.

JP

stare decisis is what the Court overturns.

stare decisis is a foundation of western jusrisprudence that oj feels courts ought to be free to ignore when it suits his narrow worldview.

how much did you pay for your negroes?

JP,

Stare decisis is simply 'to let stand a matter as already having been decided.' It's Latin for paying attention to precedent, as most clearly shown by prior case decisions concerning similar or identical fact patterns.

Like a lot of things in life, its importance all depends on how you look at things.

OJ's right on Lewis & Clark. Pretty much everything they had was paid for by the government, and their boats were designed by the same, I believe.

The main difference between then and now, however, is the branch of government. The L&C Expedition was the first and last venture of the Army Core of Discovery. I think it's high time we brought that back, and folded NASA into it.

I meant horses