HomeContact Site map   Google    www    iipm think tank
   
   
Home Scrutiny Publications Under Cover Mus'ings  
 

Home > Scrutiny > Unavoidable Curiosity

  
   
     
   Case Studies  
       
  Marketing    
  Human Resource    
  Information Technology    
  Finance    
  Strategy    
       
 
     
   Industries  
       
  Steel    
  Glass    
  Banking    
  Prophylactic    
  Auto    
  Hospitality    
  Energy    
       
 
     
   Other links  
       
  IIPM    
  Planman Consulting    
  Planman Marcom    
  Planman Technologies    
  Daily Indian Media    
  Planman Financial    
  4P's Business and Marketing    
  Business and Economy    
  The Daily Indian    
  The Sunday Indian    
  Arindam Chaudhuri    
  GIDF    
       
 
  
         
Scrutiny
  
Unavoidable Curiosity
While the rover parties on in Mars, it’s quite clear none of the Presidential candidates makes sense
30/10/2012

“Two years ago I set a goal of sending humans farther into space than we have ever been – to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s,” Obama said in response to questions posed in September 2012 by ScienceDebate.org, a non profit that regularly questions Presidential candidates on their stands on issues related to science. “It’s important to remember that the $2.5 billion investment made in this project was not spent on Mars, but right here on Earth, supporting more than 7,000 jobs in at least 31 states,” Obama added. Romney’s response was, “The current purpose and goals of the American space program are difficult to determine... With clear, decisive, and steadfast leadership, space can once again be an engine of technology and commerce.” Without doubt, none of them makes sense, a fact seconded by the founder of ScienceDebate.org, Shawn Lawrence Otto, who said, “We noticed the candidates for president weren’t talking about any of the major science challenges facing the country and affecting voters’ lives.”

Really, 43 years after mankind’s first notable successful adventure en route to space, NASA’s Curiosity rover may have started its party on Mars, but could not the $2.5 billion price tag of this mission have been used somewhere more productive?

If a life saved is a life gained, then shouldn’t the US government have been saving lives in Africa than searching for life in Mars? Isn’t there some sense in accepting that great landings on Mars do not a brilliant Earth make?

By:-
Back

  
 
 
       
Home | Scrutiny | Publications | About us | Contact us
Copyright @2010 iipm think tank. All rights reserved.