🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Feb7.093222.6406@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <IXvVuBy00WB_43mYsp@andrew.cmu.edu> rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes:
>
>>>At present, manned ventures are (very roughly, I believe) ten times as
>>>expensive as unmanned ventures in terms of data and benefits returned.
>
>>Don't forget that manned flights provide some data NOT available from
>>unmanned flights: How Humans can live/work in Space.  This is
>>important
>
>Experience gained by having people work in space is only worthwhile if
>there is some prospect of profitably applying it in the reasonably
>near future.

  [Bit and chunks removed from above, but I hope not out of context.]

Paul,
With this philosphy, we should abolish all the large aperture telescopes,
radio telescopes, particle research, robotic planetary exploration, and
a host of other fairly esoteric studies, since profitability is by no
means expected in the near future in any of these areas.  I hate it
when elimination of scientific studies is based on whether or not
you will get as many bucks back as you put in. This is not Science,
it is capitalism and belongs in the corporate office.  No, I'm not against
capitalism, but science Must not come and go based on profit, or we will
end up with a science that specializes in nothing but coffee makers and
microwave ovens.

-- 
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin@beaver.cs.washington.edu
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."