Re: Boston Globe Op/ Ed Article

From: Markus Mehring (
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 01:46:32 EST

  • Next message: Steven Rogers: "Re: Boston Globe Op/ Ed Article"

    On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0400, you ("Stephen Bolton"
    <>) wrote:
    >Which brings us to reason number two. She is not being unfairly critical
    >with the perfume and ants line - it was perfume and ants!
    It is shamefully arrogant to reduce this mission so blatantly to that kind
    of buzzwords. It is ignorant towards the huge amount of experiments that
    were flown that went _far_ beyond "perfume and ants", and it is certainly
    very disrespectful towards the loss of life and the resulting grief.
    STS-107 was no perfume factory joyride or mini-zoo, and I strongly resent
    any such comments.
    >There has been a LONG line of distinguished and knowledgeable scientists who
    >have repeatedly warned that manned space research is not worth the economic
    >cost - let aside the human. Why do you suppose they did that?
    I don't know. Envy perhaps? <scnr>
    >I have read those arguments in detail, and have never seen them effectively
    Please explain and justify the huge amount of funding that keeps going into
    other non-space fields of research that have far far less practical or
    direct short-term and long-term results to the benefit of people worldwide
    than manned spaceflight. Explain why money goes into theoretical physics,
    particle accelerators, astronomy, philosophy, art, or archeology. Also
    explain what the direct and indirect benefits of such fields are that
    render them privileged above spaceflight. Why invest in such fields?
    CU!	Markus
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 01:56:48 EST