Ken Hirsch <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:<[log in to unmask]>...
> > This is the important point that many politicians will conveniently ignore
> > in the next few weeks as they try to score political points by condemning
> > NASA, the current administration, global warming and the night shift
>  janitor
> > at their least favorite fast food restaurant for the crash.
> >
> > And to think that at one time courage and a willingness to sacrifice were
> > considered positive traits.
>
> But we shouldn't make the opposite error of assuming that just because
> something is dangerous it is therefore noble or useful or necessary.  The
> space shuttle has always been a boondoggle--expensive, dangerous, and
> unnecessary.
>
> Gregg Easterbrook, in 1980 and this week:
> http://washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html
> http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030210/sceasterbrook.html
>
> The International Space Station is another boondoggle, created just so that
> the shuttle would have somewhere to go.  The consensus among scientists has
> always been that its value was negligible and the money could be better
> spent on many other worthy ventures (in the vein of Hubble, Voyager,
> Galileo, Chandra, etc.)
> http://popularmechanics.com/science/space/2002/12/lost_in_space
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


I would argue that "science" is not the sole reason for doing all of
this.  Science surely will be a bennefactor - as will the engineering
knowledge gained.  Is it necessary?  No.  But neither is flying in
general, TV, the Internet, or exploring the ocean.  Nothing is
*necessary*.  Will it help humanity -  you may not think so,  but I
think it not only will - but already has.

-Christopher

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *