Xref: utzoo sci.astro:10801 sci.space:26333 sci.space.shuttle:6837 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!beowulf!rose From: rose@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Dan Rose) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: ASTRO status at 4/16:00 MET Message-ID: Date: 10 Dec 90 22:26:50 GMT References: <1990Dec6.230645.27668@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <828@idacrd.UUCP> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Followup-To: sci.astro Lines: 19 Nntp-Posting-Host: beowulf.ucsd.edu mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >Just another example of when you should NOT send a man to do a robot's job. >From the exercises fouling up the stability to lint from uniforms clogging >air intakes, to residue from the huge thrusters (which are only necessary >because it is a huge plane carrying men and the HEAVY life support equipment) >the evidence is overwhelming that good science in astronomy done from >orbit and human presence don't mix. The entire astro concept made no sense >after they spent umpty dumpty million dollars and then refused to fly >it but once. If they fly it again, its cost MIGHT come close to being >justified. Well, all I know about ASTRO is what I read here and in the papers, but wouldn't the mission have been a total waste without the astronauts helping out with the star tracking duties? I thought this was evidence *for* human presence, not against it. (I realize that the lint might not have been there, but something else might have gone wrong, as with HST, Magellan, etc.) -- Dan Rose {ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!beowulf!rose.uucp UC San Diego rose%cs@ucsd.edu