personal opinion

My argument remains the same. You gave logical reasons and, frankly,
I agree with them, but I am not everyone. Those of us on this list
constitute preaching to the choir. Our domestic electronics faded
during Viet Nam when military work crowded out TVs and stereos at GE,
RCA, Westinhouse, Zenith, etc. Once the technology went overseas the
decline began.

As for selling orbiters overseas, I agree. But lately we are talking
about BUYING Soviet cast-offs. I WANT Boeing, et al, to sell hardware
whose development was paid for with US taxpayer money, overseas, but
create, preserve and defend the American jobs whose taxes paid for it
in the first place.

I believe that international co-operation is essential but right now,
unless we protect and grow jobs, the world will become a nightmare
scenario of international money and all workers in the 3rd world,
even American workers.

Additionally, we are years away from substantial pay-offs to space
exploration and in my opinion, pride is the interest on the loan.

--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman
> --- In ssi_list@... "macrobot118 "
> > With all due respect to everyone on this list and the
> accomplishments
> > and sacrifices of the Russian people and their space program I
> must
> > disagree with plans to 'internationalize' space exploration.. at
> this
> > time.
> >
> > Make no mistake, national pride is one of the strongest reasons
> > Americans support NASA. Take that away and you have an expensive
> and
> > ARCANE endevour that is difficult for the tax payer to
comprehend.
> > Most people accep that space exploration is expensive and
> dangerous
> > but are willing to bear the expense because they believe some
> great
> > good will come of it 'someday'. If they believe that others will
> > exploit our efforts and crowd us out, as was done with
> electronics,
> > the 'why bother' argument has considerable teeth.
> >
> > I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with
> new
> > American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-
> sale,
> > Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry
> in
> > the long run. It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a
few
> > years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally
("When
> it
> > has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a
> space
> > fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will
> all
> > fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore.
>
> I can sympathize with your patriotic feelings but consider that one
> of the many reasons the Russians were incorporated into NASA space
> efforts was to preclude all of those "rocket scientists" going to
> look for work from the Rogue states that want missile technology.
If
> you cut the Russians loose at a time when the US is trying to put
> the WMD genie back in the bottle, I think you may find that North
> Korea may evenutally get an ICBM capable of reaching the
continental
> US, that Iran, which is now mining its own uranium, may develop a
> nuclear device and also hiring Russian scientists to develop
> missiles.
>
> As for the other countries involved in the ISS, much of their
> involvement is for foreign policy reasons and economics rather than
> the need for foreign technological expertise.
>
> I'm not sure how you equate a solo space effort with protecting
> space-based breakthroughs from competition. The US electronics
> manufacturing industry withered because of competitive forces not
> because other countries learned how to manufacture electronic
> components. They just did it better and cheaper.
>
> In your business examples you cite the providers of a service
> (airlines, delivery, satellites) but don't consider the
manufacturer
> and the increased market that they could sell to it they had a
whole