🚀 go-pugleaf

Let me preface this by saying that among working astronomers and physicists,
there is essentially no support at all for manned space exploration.  The
opinion here at Cornell is unanimous (correct me if I am mistaken) with
regard to the space station, and I know of only one dissenter -- a planetary
atmospheres specialist, Professor Sagan -- with regard to Mars.  Even there,
Professor Sagan's reasons for supporting a manned Mars mission are more
political than scientific.

When we began the Apollo program in the early 1960's, it was probably true
that our computing and robotics technology was far from the point of
being able to go to the Moon and return rocks.  That no longer holds.
My sources in robotics inform me that the field is poised for major
developments, and given what I have seen, it is certainly plausible that
a robot probe to Mars could accomplish everything proposed for manned
missions.

I would furthermore submit that even a third Viking probe, using early 1970's
technology, could have greater scientific value than a manned mission with
all the accompanying life-support diversions.

I do not need to go into the likely cost of a manned mission, nor remind
you how many Voyagers, Vikings, and Hubbles we could launch for the same
price, or how astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and all the sciences
will suffer if the project goes through.

NASA has recently solicited proposals from the public for a manned mission
to Mars, to be evaluated by RAND corporation.  If you feel as I do, I urge
you to call

		800-677-7796

for a ``proposal kit,'' and to let RAND and NASA know that we would prefer to
substitute an unmanned mission.