If we make 10 computers here and 10,000 there, then we make zero computers here. Its about perspective. Any number after the second or third signficant digit becomes irrelevant.

Now if those Hughes computers are something special, then we make those unique computers here even though we make virtually no PC in America.

Almost all laptops for IBM, Dell, and HP are made by the same Tiawan manufacturer - name long since forgotten. He builds them. We define how he must build them.

I too still build a computer from time to time. But when talking about economies, we still make no computers because I don't make enough.

More places that $80billion could have been spent:
Alvin was built in a time when science was not so micromanaged by those without science backgrounds.

Demonstrated again, fundamental sub-atomic research even is necessary before humans can explore of Mars. We still don't have much of the basic technology necessary. Anyone interested in Mars exploration should understand why knowledge gained from the 'not built' super collider and other basic research is still required before we can even consider a Mars mission. Observe the problem of years in space when outside the earth's magnetosphere as exampled in this article. And then there remains other problems such as propulsion which we really have not solved.

But instead we built the ISS.

So this puts a nifty income into the pockets of relatively few Americans. That won't keep the US economy from going to hell. The millions of good paying jobs that have been exported do more damage than 100 Ciscos could counteract.

Cern was built long ago. It is simply being upgraded to attempt some of what a super collider was suppose to have accomplished long ago. But then I made that point previously. Who profits from all that research, new products, and the motion of best minds to where the tools are? That is European profit at the expense of America.

The Manhatten Project demonstrated what happened to science in the mid 20th Century. So many important people were immigrants or refugees from Hitler. Back then the mathematics centers were Paris, Oslo, and Goeinburg (I know the spelling of that Purssian city is wrong but the town was razed by the Russian almost completely and is now their major Baltic Naval base). Center of the world for advanced Physics was Oslo and some other European towns. US became the world science leader because science had to flee to the US to work (and survive).

IEEE is noting a serious problem in America's future. Something like a 20% drop in applicants for doctorates in the US because Office of Fatherland Security built a bureacracy (rather than address why the WTC happened). Major conferences on technology are being forced out of the US because of this new bureacracy (that does not solve the original security problem). Why is Intel and Cisco doing their conference on mesh networking in Canada? Good technical people are being denied access to the US by Fatherland Security. Other science, such as advanced particle physics will be moving to Cern where "they" will profit from the new products. Where does IBM labs do advanced atomic and subatomics research? The work that makes new faster, smarter, smaller semiconductors possible? In Switzerland just down the road from Cern.

The original point is not this above. The original point is that we have so much more to learn (so much more work to do) here on earth before we can ever consider a manned spaceflight to Mars. We also don't even possess the technology to make it happen. Noted earlier in this thread is how the US is becoming third even in deep sea exploration - a more promising environment than space for man's next 100 years. All this decision making should not be dependant on policitians. And yet even Fatherland Security now routinely makes science more difficult - and not just with access to conferences.


More good science resources are wasted on boondoggles such as the anti-ballistic missile system - so that we can run up debts and destroy international treaties to enrich the wrong people. We need science decisions based upon science - and not by an MBA administration. For advanced sub-atomic particle research that makes supeconducitivity and new materials possible - move to Europe. US instead wants to spend money on invading other nations for things like oil and building useless anti-ballistic missile systems.

A manned flight to Mars is at least, many decades away. We still have just too much science to learn - and a government that now spends more on war then the entire world combined. War does not create new science. But war, such as VietNam, contributed to the thinning of the Science and Technology Index in libraries. Take a look. During VietNam, the US Science and Technology Index decreased resulting in a 70's and early 80's recession. Just more examples of why politicians are the worst people to make science decisions; ISS being only another example.