Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna
From: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dr. Dereference)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Summary: Response to attacks on my pro manned space posting.
Message-ID: <7427@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 27 Jan 89 12:19:16 GMT
References: <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu>
Reply-To: jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING)
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 40

In article <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>What?!  We should support a form of research, reward it with lots of
>money, because it is expensive?  I fail to understand this argument.

szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>Come again?  We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's
>more expensive?  

The point I tried to make is that I support a robust manned and unmanned space
program. Meaningful manned space technology R&D costs sustantially more than a
meaningful unmanned program (for many reasons: man rated hardware, humans and
human structures in space, etc.). While I agree that unmanned space R&D is 
very valuable, the manned space program is important to the future and so must
be persued. Therefore, unless you don't believe that manned space technology
R&D is important to the future, NASA should spend much more money on manned
than on unmanned space R&D. Please note that since I DO believe in a robust
unmanned program, I think it would be wrong if space station costs (as one
example) eviscerated the unmanned program.

In article <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>I think it is entirely fair to call the shuttle a disastrous failure.
>The central reason for building it, reducing launch costs, was not
>attained.  Calling the shuttle a success because it taught us how not
>to build launchers is like calling Chernobyl a success because it
>taught us how not to generate electricity.

The point here is that the shuttle is a new technology developed by a
government bureaucracy. Serious problems in such a situation are always a
definite possibility. Given that the government is the only source of the
billions required for manned space research, and that that research needs to
be done, we really don't have much choice but to support NASA. While
flushings billions of dollars down the toilet seems somewhat inevitable, and
is certainly very bad, all we can really do is try to punish those
responsible, and work to make NASA more efficient.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.signature currently under government sponsored basic research. Results
guarenteed to advance science, satisfy every special intrest group, generate
2000 times the wealth expended, and show up the Russians expected REAL SOON NOW.