Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Message-ID: <1989Jan20.193344.9479@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1989Jan15.095906.18357@utzoo.uucp> <92@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 19:33:44 GMT

In article <1989Jan18.102436.12838@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Van Allen correctly predicted the disastrous failure of the space
>shuttle program to achieve its stated objective of reducing launch
>costs, and so far his predictions about the space station are right on
>target...

<sarcasm> How impressive. <end sarcasm>  He wasn't the only one making
those predictions.  Does this somehow give his other opinions more weight?

>His comments about the scientific track record of manned vs.
>unmanned flights are cogent...

Interesting, yes.  I'm not sure I would say "cogent" without first talking
to people like the solar astrophysics types (remember the Skylab Solar
Telescope and the Solar Max repair?), not to mention the lunar geologists.

>Space colonies are at this moment pie-in-the-sky, and will, IMHO, be
>so for many decades, if not generations.  Space science is not -- it
>can yield useful knowledge *right now*.  Is it any wonder that van
>Allen is upset that expensive and much less useful (albeit
>ideologically correct) projects dominate?

If one's priorities are short-term gain (be it financial or scientific),
then of course one gets upset about long-term investments.  Some would
question those priorities, however.

>It is disingenious to pretend that recent NASA emphasis on manned
>spaceflight, the shuttle program in particular, has not had a major
>negative impact on planetary and space science.

It is also dishonest, not to mention foolish, to pretend that cutting
back manned spaceflight would boost planetary science.

>>Why do we need discoveries to lead to settlements...
>
>What about unmanned asteroid exploration?  A lunar polar orbiter?
>Probes to Phobos?  Our knowledge of ET resources is still rudimentary.

Agreed, but please observe the word "need".  These things would indeed
be useful.  (I note that most of them don't seem to be high priority for
the space-science bunch.)  But they are in no sense prerequisites.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu