Xref: utzoo sci.space:6139 sci.space.shuttle:891
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!eugene
From: eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.arpa (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote
Message-ID: <11801@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 14 Jul 88 21:14:21 GMT
References: <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp> <3361@phri.UUCP> <1222@thumper.bellcore.com> <222@sdeggo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Eugene N. Miya)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 52

We are getting away from shuttle news, so I removed it from newsgroups.

Anyway, I should come to Phil's defense and also make a note for someone
else.

First, Rick Johnson was wondering if everybody read his note about
soliciting future and past accomplishments on space (what would be a
good and worthly goal or were past goals).  Rick is on BITNET and
it appears were are forwarding problems.

Now, Phil and others have made some good points.  I think a lot of
people know my personal is toward unmanned (un-person'ed) space
research.  One thing which distinguishes my views from many on the net
is where I place myself on this continuum of discussion.  Most net
correspondents really want to got out there, to experience Zero-G.
I wouldn't mind, but it seems terribly tame.  I would go into space
if I felt I were the best person for the job.  I wear glasses now (1st
year), and I would rather sacrifice my spot for a sighted person.
A lighter person for a heavier person in order to say take more
instruments, and so forth.  There's a lot of competitiveness, but I
would rather We get the best data.

I think that's part of Phil's point.  Machines are good for somethings
not others.  My reply to Rick in order of significance was 1) make
contact with an ET civilization [justification: such an event would
dwarf any space mission and fully change the nature of our
civilization], 2) unmanned missions have given us more "Science" than
any of the manned missions, and 3 last, but not least, the manned
missions.  We are talking an order of magnitude cost here.

Emotional aspects: there are admittedly exciting aspects to this.
We should not let our emotions get the best of us, let's we get into
political races again (and I don't mean electoral).
Regarding who should pay for it, we all should.  If I could set up two
societies in the US one which takes responsibility for its scientific
endeavors and the other which doesn't, let the latter not have weather
into, etc.  They will survive, it's kind of a riduclous comparison,
we do this now, the institutions are called Universities.  Just
remember the long-term benefit comes from the science, and not the
emotion.  Remember, this is just an opinion, right?  Not policy.

Remember the line in ET:
	"Why doesn't he just 'beam up?'"
	"This is reality stupid!"
Especially made funny since it's said in a movie.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."