Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsl!sw
From: sw@cbnewsl.att.com (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skeptical Shuttle Enquirer
Summary: but...but...
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.183719.29582@cbnewsl.att.com>
Date: 9 Apr 91 18:37:19 GMT
References: <910@idacrd.UUCP> <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: Interface Systems @ Bell Labs
Lines: 15

(Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the 
> case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation
> on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that there's no substitute for manned presence in space.

But that is not a very good argument; it is like saying that there
must be a manned presence in space because of a manned presence in space.

Ah, this subject ranks up there with abortion and gun control :-)
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA  |  sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM  |       Hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------