Manned spaceflight (was Boston Globe article)

From: Stephen Bolton (
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 08:13:44 EST

  • Next message: Stephen Bolton: "Manned VS Unmanned"

    On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:00:07 -0400, you ("Stephen Bolton"
    <>) wrote:
    >When I look at what the manned LEO program has returned VS what could have
    >been a program with bigger space telescopes and a complete robotic
    >exploration of our solar system (because, face it, the manned space steals
    >from the unmanned space budget) I get upset.
    Marcus wrote:
    But manned spaceflight itself isn't to blame for that. Manned spaceflight
    in itself isn't bad just because unmanned spaceflight is under budgeted.
    This kind of attitude is exactly what I meant with my previous insinuations
    of "envy" within some scientists ranks. "They're spending money that we'd
    rather want to be spending."
    But what happens in reality is NASA gets "X" dollars to do both, and has to
    decide where to distribute it.
    I maintain the scientific return of manned research is not worth the cost.
    >I'll take the return from the
    >Hubble over the return from the entire STS/ ISS program.
    Hubble doesn't do life sciences. I'd value any piece of result from
    microgravity research on cancer or on any other medical issues higher than
    the entire lot of Hubble results. And I'm saying that as an HST devotee.
    As a physician I see little obvious contribution to medicine from the space
    Remember, no people in space - no pressing need to see what space does to
    How CAN you be a Hubble "devotee" and make that statement? That scope is
    arguably the most important scientific instrument in history.
    Lets move this to
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 06 2003 - 08:21:08 EST