leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (01/20/89)
In article <1989Jan18.160559.2021@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <6226@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes: >>>If one does not accept the position that space colonies are just >>>around the corner (I don't), then it becomes reasonable to speculate >>>that a workable fusion rocket will exist by the time they are built. >>>That might make it feasible to retrieve outer solar system resources. I don't think we need fusion rockets to retrieve outer solar system resources, or any other mission. Your posting suggests you feel differently. I apologize for being overly sarcastic in my response. >I was just arguing that we shouldn't dismiss planetary >science just because it doesn't fit the Space Colonization Now mindset. (a) I don't disagree. Disliking Van Allen and "dismissing planetary science" are orthogonal. (b) I don't have a "space colonization now" mindset, or even one with Capitals. (c) However, I don't believe science should dominate NASA. I wouldn't mind if we spun off portions of JPL, Ames etc. somewhat like the Japanese have done with their two agencies. However, if space science funding were isolated from the relatively larger NASA budget, I wouldn't be surprised if the NSF fought to gain control of the $100 millions being spent. Strong arguments can be made that space science is very cost ineffective, particularly the planetary missions. (I do not care to argue this position on this newsgroup, however :-) -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.'' - Ronald Reagan