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."