mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (08/31/88)
In article <645@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: > >Of course, there's a certain amount of romance in manned missions, but I >really don't think that's worth what it costs. >-- > Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg > 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 > Exactly, and that "romance" is itself an important element in what amounts to basic exploration. How many people are now scientists and engineers due to the "romance" of Apollo. "You can't eat moondust!" was the rallying cry of the "down with space-niks" in the late 60s and 70s. There are those who assume that space is pointless unless they get a check from NASA in the mail once a month. Sure, it's well and good to look a the practical elements and returns from the manned space program, no doubt it has be "oversold" in many areas. But lets face it, the launch of another weather satillite is not terribly inspirational. Kids in school today don't say "gee, I think I'll go into engineering so I too can build the next generation communications satillites!". Space Camp doesn't attract thousands of students a year because they promise to teach them to become an effecitve ground controller on some gamma-ray experiment. It's the expectation that someday these kids might find themselves sitting on their back, listening to the countdown over their helmets that leads many to become the next generation of physicists, super-computer designers or cancer researchers. But still there are those who pride themselves on how they are the shining examples, the oracles of the One True Way, a more nobler example of the species which constantly remind us that manned spaceflight is pointless, not very utilitarian. Why not expand their debate to include support for the arts. "Why should the government waste money on things like orchestras or theatrical groups, what practical benefits can be derived from that!!!" (Continuing this line of thinking even further would lead us to a purely utilitarian society, where everything is painted gray or only one kind of car is sold since it is cheaper to build.) The term "dream" is much overused in these discussions, but I think it is appropriate here. We can dream of greatness only when greatness is permitted. ------------------------------------------------- Random thoughts from someone inspired enought by Apollo to get involved with computers. . . . . -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) (08/31/88)
<< Much discussion deleted >> > Besides, the pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a technological > revolution brought about by genetic engineering. Suppose you find a > drug for which space processing could be advantageous at at today > prices. By the time you have designed, built and launched the > necessary equipment, it is quite likely that someone would have found a > Earth-based process that beats yours by orders of magnitude. > This is precisely what happened to the project by McDonnell-Douglas to > purify the drug erythropoyetin (sp?) by zero-g electrophoresis. > The same objections apply to other proposed zero-g products, such as > semiconductors, alloys, etc. Let me just throw out this thought for chewing on. (I make no claims about its validity; I just want to provoke more thought.) What about the long term advantages of zero-gee health care? What if we decide that certain life saving operations can only be done zero-g? What if some heart patients can only recuperate properly in zero-g? What if . . . ? You can certainly claim that the expense of getting them up there and keeping there them is too prohibative. (Of course, Those people who need such care may disagree with you.) Then shouldn't we be figuring out how to best reduce those costs? We've made it possible for people to fly around the world safely and (relatively) cheaply. Why not do what is necessary to allow people into space the same way? After all, it IS possible that just because a good reason CAN'T be thought of now, it doesn't mean that such a reason DOESN'T exist. > > I hope this small sample will suffice to clarify > my position with respect to Mr. Brody letter and the manned space > program. To those who got this far, thanks for your patience, and > my apologies if I have wasted your time. I don't believe you've wasted the time of anyone who is serious about space. Dissenting opinions are some of the most important ones to hear and consider. And besides, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, even if they are wrong. :-) > > Jorge Stolfi > stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi > > DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, > my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with. > ---------- David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears
steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) (09/01/88)
In article <3330006@hpindda.HP.COM> mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes: >Let me just throw out this thought for chewing on. (I make no claims >about its validity; I just want to provoke more thought.) > >What about the long term advantages of zero-gee health care? ... The problem comes when the resources (time, effort, money) spent to improve the health of a few people using a zero-g environment means that a much larger number of people receive inadequate health care. Such a situation would not be high on my priority list. -- Steve Emmerson Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1] SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::) emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov "Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"