🚀 go-pugleaf

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