Space program: Money well spent |

Space program: Money well spent

In response to “Down to Earth” (VND, Nov. 14): This is typical liberal bellyaching about monies being spent on nuances.

Those billions of dollars that were spent starting in the late 1950s up to present on the space program have yielded trillions of revenue dollars from new technology, materials and techniques developed initially for space but now used in everyday life.

Computers, plastics, metals and machining and welding techniques were all put on the fast track of development and now we enjoy the luxuries of that effort with our electronic gizmos, cars and practically everything else in a typical day.

That sounds like a pretty good return on investment to me. If we had spent that same money on social issues, we would have to add that to the total “War on Poverty,” which is in the trillions of dollars, and we still have millions of people living in poverty today to show for it.

Earth eventually is going to run out of resources (metals, minerals, fuels, etc.) and we need to start exploring options for replacing them now — not when the doomsday clock is at 11:59.

Mining the moon, comets and asteroids as well as colonizing other planets will be necessary for the future of mankind. After all, we have to replenish that hole we poked in the ozone layer with this wanton waste of money.

By the way, the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo missions had many failures in testing, but they worked at launch time due to innovations, U.S. ingenuity and hard work.

Greg Massung

North Huntingdon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.