>From: "Ronald J. Riley" <rjriley@...>
><<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?

Yoour evident indignation might better be slaked by supplanting the
administrations current policy on population control by one that is more
concerned with efficacy and less with placating a dubious pack of religious
zealots.

>
>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.
>

What is the precise point of getting even more information about human
tolerance of zero g? What would it enable or veto that is not already
enabled or vetoed? As for 0-g industrial proceedures, there have been
endless promises but no economically significant work for 30 years, a
situation that will continue indefinitely so far as I can see. Finally,
isn't it obvious that an appropriate manned space program would avoid using
manned craft as cargo-haulers?

><<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.

So how would you rate some clown who gets into Yale only because daddy is a
wealthy and powerful alum and who emerges unable to get through a single
sentence without perpetrating unspeakale horrors on English usage and
syntax?

The more
>highly trained a person is the greater the loss to society. Perhaps crass,
>but never the less true.

"nevertheless" is a single word in standard written English.

BTW, there was a disastrous building collapse in Lagos, Nigeria today. The
initial death toll was 20, though the fatalities are likely to mount greatly
as bodies are uncovered from the wreckage. On what moral view are these
deaths less to be lamented than those of the Columbia crew? Just asking.
>
>Ronald J. Riley www.InventorEd.org
>

NL

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail