----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <bradmcc@...>
To: <Scipolicy-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Scipolicy-L] the "sentimental crap" of manned space travel?


<<We cannot afford to do everything. Is the shuttle a better investment
of our limited resources than, e.g., the Supercollider?>>

Both have merit. Perhaps less aid should be sent to peoples who
consistently breed beyond the capacity of their land to support them, and
more should be spent on science and research?

Balancing competing interests is the essence of politics. I spend a
considerable amount of time lobbying Washington every year about a variety

<<As for studying the physiology of weightlessness, wasn't that
done pretty well on Mir?>>

Are you saying we understand the physiology so well that there is nothing
more to learn? And what about industrial processes in zero G?

There are things which need to be studied where manner missions make the
most sense, and other things where unmanned missions make sense.

<<And may I suggest that there is a lot more sentimental cr-p
here? Hundreds and probably thousands and maybe far more persons
were suffering and dying from all sorts of horrible diseases
and accidents yesterday and none of them got any public expression
of sympathy, and many of them did not even have any friends or
family to help console them. I think we would do better
to direct our sentiments to innocent cancer and burn victims than
to lionized professional risk takers who may have died so
quickly that they did not suffer.>>

We have always pursued new frontiers even as people are dieing from a host
of causes. In fact many of the cures or tools in a huge number of
disciplines have been spun off of the space program.

Also, some people's value to society is far greater then others. The more
highly trained a person is the greater the loss to society. Perhaps crass,
but never the less true.

Ronald J. Riley www.InventorEd.org