Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!mears
From: mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Re: Intangibles. . .(was "Letter to Congress, et. al.")
Message-ID: <3330006@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 30 Aug 88 20:59:30 GMT
References: <1365@eos.UUCP>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 48

<< Much discussion deleted >>

> Besides, the pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a technological
> revolution brought about by genetic engineering.  Suppose you find a
> drug for which space processing could be advantageous at at today
> prices.  By the time you have designed, built and launched the
> necessary equipment, it is quite likely that someone would have found a
> Earth-based process that beats yours by orders of magnitude.
> This is precisely what happened to the project by McDonnell-Douglas to
> purify the drug erythropoyetin (sp?) by zero-g electrophoresis.
> The same objections apply to other proposed zero-g products, such as
> semiconductors, alloys, etc.  

Let me just throw out this thought for chewing on.  (I make no claims
about its validity; I just want to provoke more thought.)

What about the long term advantages of zero-gee health care?  What if
we decide that certain life saving operations can only be done zero-g?
What if some heart patients can only recuperate properly in zero-g?
What if . . . ?  You can certainly claim that the expense of getting
them up there and keeping there them is too prohibative.  (Of course,
Those people who need such care may disagree with you.)  Then shouldn't
we be figuring out how to best reduce those costs?  We've made it
possible for people to fly around the world safely and (relatively)
cheaply.  Why not do what is necessary to allow people into space the
same way?  After all, it IS possible that just because a good reason
CAN'T be thought of now, it doesn't mean that such a reason DOESN'T exist.
> 
> I hope this small sample will suffice to clarify
> my position with respect to Mr. Brody letter and the manned space
> program.  To those who got this far, thanks for your patience, and
> my apologies if I have wasted your time.

I don't believe you've wasted the time of anyone who is serious about
space.  Dissenting opinions are some of the most important ones to
hear and consider.  And besides, everyone is entitled to their own
opinions, even if they are wrong.  :-)
> 
>                 Jorge Stolfi
>                 stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi
> 
> DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer,
> my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.  
> ----------

David B. Mears
Hewlett-Packard
Cupertino CA
hplabs!hpda!mears