🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JMC.92Jul25123947@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

> My opinion is that the physicists are mistaken about the space
> station, imagining they could get some of the money saved by the
> cancellation.

There may well be some physicists who think this, but most, I think
are more realistic.

For myself, my opposition to the space station is because I would like
to see a healthy space program (and yes, one that includes human
flight, and probably one that includes a space station and a lunar
colony), and it is my opinion that this particular space station is
more likely to be detrimental to this goal than advantageous.  I
believe that it would be better to cut our losses (perhaps with the
shuttle as well), start over, and do it right.

I agree that when people argue that the space station is
scientifically unjustified, they are missing the point: science isn't
the reason why anyone wants to build it.  Still, the government and
the press treats it as a science project: how many stories have you
seen that talk about the space station, the human genome project
(HUGO), and the SSC as the government's major scientific expendatures?
It is worth pointing out that, unlike the SSC and HUGO, the space
station is not a science project, and not something that scientists,
qua scientists, have asked for.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.