🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>
>No, I don't believe I have just presented conflicting views.  Look at some
>examples:  Columbus' voyage could be argued as one of as much adventure as
>economics.

	From Columbus' standpoint, yes.  There are no shortages of
would-be Columbuses in the US, or even in this newsgroup.  But for
Queen Isabella, the voyage was primarily a question of economics.  There
was a certain amount of national prestige involved, but while that might
have justified one voyage (i.e. Apollo), it was the economic incentives
that caused the Spanish to return again and again to the New World.
There _is_ a shortage of Queen Isabellas today, although the infant
private launch industry is a good sign.

	Frankly, I used to be a hard-core man-in-space enthusiast.
I still think that that is the desirable eventual goal, but the more
I've thought about it, the more I've realized that _I_, personally, have
potentially more to gain from the unmanned programs.  I have essentially
zero chance of becoming an astronaut, unless large colonies are started
in the next 25 years (very unlikely).  After spending 4 years studying a
relevant subject (aero engineering) in a prestigious school and getting
reasonable grades, I'm having trouble just getting into NASA/JPL at all.
In the near future, we stand to learn more tangible science and
intangibles about the position of Man in the universe from the unmanned
program, which is massively underfunded.  Men *are* involved in the
"unmanned" program, _more_ men more intimately wrapped up in exploration.
Let's not kill it by apathy or too much focus on manned missions.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>  <- preferred
              <kpmancus@pucc.BITNET>