HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) (01/26/89)
Someone recently wrote, in the continuing manned/unmanned debate, that with the amount it would cost to go to Mars, we could build 2000 probes and check out every cubic centimeter of the solar system (sorry, I think I nuked the original posting by accident). This may be true in monetary terms, but politically, it's far off. A manned mission generates much more interest, and therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000 unmanned probes). Fer cryin' out loud, NASA can barely maintain any unmanned missions because they don't generate enough noise so that politicians want to fund them. On the other hand, there is a very real possibility of our spending $100 billion+ to go to Mars. Though hundreds of times less economically viable, manned missions are politically more appealing, and Dr. Van Allen's plan of dropping the manned space program might well leave NASA without enough money to keep the coffee machine running. Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a non-sexist term for a "manned" mission? Here they've taken to calling first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't sound right. Any thoughts? The Space People will contact us when they | Greg Howard can make money by doing so. - DAVID BYRNE | HOWGREJ at YALEVM
chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (01/27/89)
In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes: | Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a |non-sexist term for a "manned" mission? Here they've taken to calling |first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't |sound right. Any thoughts? "Crewed" and "staffed" are perfectly acceptable, and the latter of these even sounds good. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | ARPA: chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu BITNET: chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR) ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET: chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) (01/27/89)
In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes: > Though hundreds of times less >economically viable, manned missions are politically more appealing, I've seen the "the average Joe is incapable of understanding the unmanned space program" argument before, and I don't think it holds water. The large majority of people are capable of understanding that incredible images of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the sun, the edge of the universe, etc. are very special and worthwhile. 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.
szabonj@humpback (Nick Szabo) (01/28/89)
In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes: > >A manned mission generates much more interest, and >therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000 >unmanned probes). This is a myth. A poll I recently posted shows that unmanned missions are more popular than manned. If NASA replaced the manned program to empty space with probes to many different and fascinating places in the solar system, I suspect public support and government funding would increase dramatically. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (01/28/89)
From HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard): > Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a > non-sexist term for a "manned" mission? Here they've taken to calling > first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't > sound right. Any thoughts? The Planetary Society went through this silliness a few years back. Louis Friedman suggested it in the March 1985 issue of the _The_Planetary_Report_. The society was soon swamped with suggestions. The most popular response was "staffed." Other ideas for mission adjectives included: accompanied humanned ambisextrous hybrid animated inhabited anthropic live attended missionary beset organic bionic peopled corporeal piloted creatured prosopal droogied (Greek for "personned") (from Russian word starred for "friend") tended hominized wamo (woman or man operated) -- Andrew J. Higgins | Illini Space Development Society 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3 | a chapter of the National Space Society Champaign IL 61820 | at the University of Illinois phone: (217) 359-0056 | P.O. Box 2255 Station A e-mail: ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL 61825 "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet." - William Shakespeare
tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) (01/30/89)
In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET (Greg Howard) writes: > ... A manned mission generates much more interest, and >therefore will receive much more funding, than any unmanned probe (or 2000 >unmanned probes). I cannot believe the poster seriously considered the implications of his statement. Not that I think the number itself is all that realistic, but just stop and THINK for a moment what 2,000 (TWO THOUSAND) planetary and Earth probes would yield! We would know the Solar System as thoroughly as we know the Galapagos, or Sausalito for that matter. <grin> I submit that if we invested in a BLANKET program of probes, so that Joe Sixpack could watch high quality full color Ganymede travelogues on evening TV as easily as he watches pro golf today, then the public would be DEMANDING manned exploration, in a BIG way, instead of sullenly tolerating more levies for Star Wars and a Space Station (which will never venture farther into the Solar System than Newark NJ ventures from Harrisburg PA). Yet even if the public never plumps for large scale manned exploration at their own expense -- exploration on the dole is always a risky prospect, as Columbus discovered -- the probes would GIVE US our solar system in a way I doubt we're going to get it given present trends. What we're doing at present seems more logically designed to keep Rockwell humming than to keep human knowledge advancing. I don't wish to denigrate the fine work of the thousands of scientists and engineers in the aerospace program (some of whom are reading this); I have the highest confidence that they'd do equally exemplary work on a more sensible space program, if management assigned it. -- Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP or tneff@dasys1.UUCP
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (01/30/89)
In article <3067@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: <In article <Added.8XrfC6y00Ui3MefU83@andrew.cmu.edu> HOWGREJ@YALEVM.BITNET <(Greg Howard) writes: <| Just out of curiousity, and to keep from offending anyone, is there a <|non-sexist term for a "manned" mission? Here they've taken to calling <|first-year students "freshpersons", but a "personned" mission just doesn't <|sound right. Any thoughts? < < "Crewed" and "staffed" are perfectly acceptable, and the latter of <these even sounds good. "Crewed" isn't usable due to an unfortunate homonym. It's hard to get politicians and the public interested when they hear the newscaster say something about a "crude" mission... 1/2 :-) And Staffed already has a meaning that we *don't* want, as in "they staffed it" (ie got the staff to draw up all the @$^%$ paperwork) -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short