When we're talking about colonization and/or building infrastructure, "cost-effectiveness" means different things in different time frames. Over 10 years we might invest billions and get nothing back. Over a century we might invest 100's of billions, and get trillions back. The thing about infrastructure is it's like a goose that lays golden eggs, vs. a golden egg. You build it once, and (with proper maintenance) it may keep producing indefinitely.
What that is true, again, you can spend billions on infrastructure to get us permanent bases on a dead Moon, or focus that money elsewhere. Good money management isn't a question of getting a return, it is about getting the best return given your constraints. If we invest hundreds of billions and get trillions back over the course of a century, that is not a great rate of return if Earth based infrastructure would have netted us more. Add to that that over the course of a century we will all be dead, so that time horizon is a little long for my tastes. If anyone ever tries to sell you magic beans that will only sprout after you are dead, run—don't walk—away from that person. Add further to that that even if the investment offers an attractive return, you are ignoring the constraints. The U.S. may well be coming close to the limits of its ability to spend. When you have limited cash flow it's basic personal finance that you should disfavor long term investments that tie that cash flow up indefinitely. Invest in Constellation, and the benefits may start to pay out in a few decades (other than the inspirational benefits which may arise sooner). I'm just not convinced.
Obama vows commitment to manned space exploration During the presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for Constellation but after the election, he set up a panel of outside experts to review NASA's plans and how much they might ultimately cost. The panel concluded NASA could not afford to implement Constellation, or any other reasonable exploration program, without an additional $3 billion or so per year, primarily to make up for earlier budget reductions. And that did not take into account the cost of operating the International Space Station beyond 2015. The group favored a shift to commercial launch services to carry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit while NASA focused on development of a new heavy-lift rocket system that would enable eventual flights to the moon, nearby asteroids or even the moons of Mars. The Obama administration agreed with the idea of commercial launch services, but it did not explicitly embrace the "flexible path" approach to deep space exploration suggested by the panel, focusing instead on development of enabling technologies and somewhat vague long-range goals. The new commitment to development of a heavy lifter with specific deep space objectives may defuse at least some of the outside criticism.
Ah, cost benefit analysis. How I missed that for 8 years. I like the vagueness. It's a way to keep a lid on costs while placating folk. No question we won't be going to Mars within the next 30 years. We'll be in forced austerity mode long before that.
Obama IS confusing. Half the time I cannot figure him out. He does something that makes a major change and I get upset, yet later, he talks as though he's gonna make it all better.
He's a centrist! Like Clinton. He wouldn't have got where he is if he wasn't in the middle. Republicans can stay to the right because they serve the rich exclusively. They can still get elected despite their constituency being a minority.
Sometimes, it does. Although you assume you have spoken a "truth..." Nonetheless. I am not hurt. Just was commenting on your repetative opinion. You seem to bear a lot of resentment toward Republicans or anyone that voices an opinion you deem to be Republican. Are you this way toward everything that disagrees with you?