MORE proof of the inferiority of unmanned probes

Ed wrote:

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...


And yeah, I know, I probably just got trolled again. These guys seem to
have stooped to impersonating women lately. Get lives aholes!

Are women unable to troll for some reason? You do realize that some
women are able to (gasp!) operate a personal computer and navigate the
Internet, here in the 21st century. Some women can even leave the house
without permission and drive a car.

I don't believe I even implied otherwise. But the fact is that amateur
astronomy (and this newsgroup in particular) is dominated by men. All
of a sudden during our last troll frenzy several rude women who sound
just like trolls showed up. Coincidence? Maybe. But that's missing my
point. My point is that the trollers have made it difficult to tell a
real post from a troll. And that ticks me off!


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Ashley Daniels wrote:
Why, because I don't agree with the conventional thinking of some members of
this group? The minute someone starts a thread in the opposite direction
from the norm, they are labelled a troll, a-hole, whatever else you call
it. Well, so be it.

That's the fault of the trollers: it is their doing that we can't take
every post at face value here anymore. I was complaining about *that*.
Talk about missing the point. It wasn't about you.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I obviously disagree. But there
really isn't any point in arguing about it. We both had our say.

I do wonder, however, why someone who is anti-science and
anti-technology is posting their beliefs on a science newsgroup? You
surely can't expect a lot of sympathy for your views here.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Richard wrote:
Your priorities mean NOTHING if you don't recognize the fact that you
don't
solve all your problems by throwing money at them. Americans have
divested themselves of personal responsibility, adults and children
both. They have no shame, therefore they feel no remorse or
responsibility. That is cultural, not
monetary. The pursuit of purely scientific research is a noble goal,
not
figuring out how to avoid taxes so you can buy that $40,000 SUV.

Personally, I think throwing stones at 270 million people as if they are
all the same is foolhardy to the point of silliness.

And this is politics now, so can it.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

I don't believe I even implied otherwise. But the fact is that amateur
astronomy (and this newsgroup in particular) is dominated by men. All
of a sudden during our last troll frenzy several rude women who sound
just like trolls showed up.

Why do you assume that Ashley is a womans name? In my case, it isn't. Talk
about labelling again, gee wilikers!

Coincidence? Maybe. But that's missing my
point. My point is that the trollers have made it difficult to tell a
real post from a troll. And that ticks me off!

Real or not, somebody had to say it. If it ticks one off, so be it. I'm
ticked off by all the money we're wasting and decided to bring the issue to
the forefront strongly. However, the point has now been made and people can
respond as they will- I'm finished posting within this thread.

Ash



--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

That's the fault of the trollers: it is their doing that we can't take
every post at face value here anymore. I was complaining about *that*.
Talk about missing the point. It wasn't about you.


Oh, well, in that case, I apologize. I may be presenting some strong,
opinionated statements, but I can still acknowlege reason when I see it.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I obviously disagree. But there
really isn't any point in arguing about it. We both had our say.

I say so too. I get tired of arguments quickly.


I do wonder, however, why someone who is anti-science and
anti-technology is posting their beliefs on a science newsgroup? You
surely can't expect a lot of sympathy for your views here.

I expected that, yes. I felt it was time though to make a definitive
statement of some type. I keep seeing people I know loosing jobs, kids
getting hooked on drugs, etc. etc. and decided to attack all of the money we
keep spending on space projects. In actually, I am not anti-science at all,
but I question whether or not all of this funding is going to benefit
mankind in any way. Unfortunately, in the long run, I don't see it.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree.

Ash


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Del Johnson wrote:
We have men on the space station and are hardly receiving any science in
return for the enormous cost. They spend most of their time and resources
keeping themselves alive, plus there is the huge cost of bringing them back
home.

The fact is that unmanned spacecraft have produced much more quality science
than any manned mission.

I think you are both right (and wrong).

The rovers are great science and nobody should denigrate that just
because they'd rather see a man there.

Sending people to mars would be a big deal and clearly having scientists
there on scene would be a big deal. But there isn't any point in
sending someone just to plant a damned flag. It has to be done right,
for the long term, and that hard. The space station, if properly
supported, has the potential to solve some of the basic problems that
make sending humans to mars difficult. The station is not finished!

It really bugs me when I see people taking pot shots at each other over
these issues. We need both manned and unmanned exploration. Cutting
one will only hurt the other in time. Let's stop cutting off our neses
to spite our face on this. We need to support all space efforts.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

The fact is that unmanned spacecraft have produced much more quality science
than any manned mission.

Del Johnson

Del:

Please avoid contaminating this thread by remaining On Topic and otherwise
relevent.

The shock of reading something clearly stated, supported with evidence and
logical too boot, is likely to cause several heart attacks among the other
posters here.

:-)

Jon

I agree that it would be great to have manned and unmanned missions, but it
has been made quite clear that manned missions will be at the expense of
unmanned probes and space telescopes. All one has to is to compare the
results of the HST with brief human spaceflights and the ISS with long term
spaceflights to see which way is better.

Del Johnson


"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...

It really bugs me when I see people taking pot shots at each other over
these issues. We need both manned and unmanned exploration. Cutting
one will only hurt the other in time. Let's stop cutting off our neses
to spite our face on this. We need to support all space efforts.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

Del Johnson wrote:
I agree that it would be great to have manned and unmanned missions, but it
has been made quite clear that manned missions will be at the expense of
unmanned probes and space telescopes.

That's not clear to me at all. Yes, the HST has been cut. But the
truth is that HST is at the end of it's expected lifetime. It's a big
stretch to claim that the decision to let it go means no more support
for science or unmanned space exploration. Personally I think we should
move on to bigger and better scopes rather than keep the old bird
flying. Sometimes you have to let go to move on. People would be
better off spending their efforts clamoring for a bigger, better optical
scope in a high orbit (like JWST). And then there is the JWST -- a very
ambitious space telescope -- that has not seen any funding cuts. I am
also hearing that mars exploration is expected to see funding increases.

All one has to is to compare the
results of the HST with brief human spaceflights and the ISS with long term
spaceflights to see which way is better.

Apples and Oranges. Just because you personally value the astronomy
more than the life sciences doesn't mean the ISS can accomplish nothing.
In fact, people could argue that if a single science result from the
ISS cured one disease, or helped one group of people with a genetic bone
disease feel better then that would be worth more than all astronomical
results combined. I don't agree, of course, but that's exactly my
point: I hate to see all this factionalization, this denigration of one
science over another. It stinks and it's petty and it's going to hurt
us all in the end.


We need to finish the ISS and get what we paid for. We should demand
it. If we never get any science out of it because small minded people
killed it after spending all those billions -- now that would be the
real shame.

I don't know how science went astray on this. How the hell did we end
up trying to cut the throats of every other science project rather than
simply promote our own on it's own merits? If a project can be shown to
have merit it will be funded by Congress. But the guy down the hall,
who has his own project to be funded, is telling them it's all a waste
of money! All this feuding needs to end or I fear science is in big
trouble.


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

Ashley Daniels wrote:
Why do you assume that Ashley is a womans name? In my case, it isn't. Talk
about labelling again, gee wilikers!

I've never heard of a man named Ashley before. You must get that a lot.
But I apologize nonetheless. I suppose Linda is also a man? Never
thought of that! Of course, there is still the distinct possibility
that you are just toying with us. Some would claim that walking into a
science newsgroup and railing against science is itself the act of a
troll...

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen