RE: Boston Globe Op/ Ed Article

From: Edward Ehrlich (eehrlich@shani.net)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 02:57:55 EST

  • Next message: paul: "aliens afterall ??? read below"

    Markus wrote:
    
    >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?
    
    I doubt if any of the very worthy fields mentioned above are receiving
    close to the $6 Billion that is budgeted annually to manned space
    flight.  So the question is the opposite: does manned space flight
    deserve to be privileged?
    
    The late Richard Feynman wrote "In the newspaper I used to read about
    shuttles going up and down all the time, but it bothered me a little bit
    that I never saw in any scientific journal any results of anything that
    had ever come out of the experiments on the shuttle that were supposed
    to be so important". (What Do You Care What Other People Think?)
    
    Investment in very expensive "Big Science" projects such as the CERN
    Particle Accelerator and the Hubble Space Telescope is sometimes very
    justified.  But it seems doubtful that the scientific results coming out
    of the manned flight program are on that level and do not alone justify
    the risk to lives or the cost of manned space flight.
    
    On the other hand, if the real goal of manned space flight is
    exploration for its own sake and developing our ability to reach
    physically farther into space, why are we risking so much for a shuttle
    ferrying back and forth to some spot a few hundred kilometers about the
    Earth's surface? 
    
    I personally think abandoning manned space flights would be a tragedy.
    I also think that NASA has done some incredibly fine work.  But if it is
    to be continued, it should serve a real purpose and not merely as a
    result of the tremendous bureaucratic inertia that any large
    organization such as NASA can build up over the years. 
    
    Ed Ehrlich - SkyWatch - The Astronomical Alarm Clock
    <webmaster@sky-watch.com>
    Jerusalem, Israel
    http://www.sky-watch.com
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Markus Mehring [mailto:m.m@gmx.de] 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:47 AM
    To: seesat-l@satobs.org
    Subject: Re: Boston Globe Op/ Ed Article
    
    On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:41:21 -0400, you ("Stephen Bolton"
    <sbolton@nbnet.nb.ca>) 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
    >countered.
    
    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 SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
    http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
    http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 03:09:45 EST