[lOKKI]

I don't have a problem with the argument that machines can do things more efficiently and cheaper in space than men.

I do have a problem with what seems to be a current American fetish - the over-valuing of a single human life.
Ya - sure, every human life is precious, but there are endeavors in which the risk of loss, or the actual loss of human life are worthwhile. Generally these endeavors are things that will improve the lot of a larger group of humanity.

However, America has forgotten the idea of worthy sacrifice.

If the argument is to be made that machines are more effective and cheaper to operate in space, make it without resorting to the emotionalism of "someone might get hurt".

How many men did Magellan lose (before his own death) when he sailed around the world?

[doc30]

If the argument is to be made that machines are more effective and cheaper to operate in space, make it without resorting to the emotionalism of "someone might get hurt".

I agree with your sentiments to a point. To me it's that machines can do more for a lot less money than manned flight. I'm not against manned flight, but rather I'm for the best science return for dollars spent. We could do a lot, lot more without the shuttles devouring NASA's budget.

[Alberta's Child]

I do have a problem with what seems to be a current American fetish - the over-valuing of a single human life.

I agree with you, but on this topic you're really barking up the wrong tree here. In the aftermath of the Columbia disaster, the most ardent supporters of the space shuttle program were the same people who criticized NASA for failing to mount some kind of a rescue mission when they knew that the Columbia's heat shield may have been compromised. So on the one hand, they felt that the space shuttle is a good idea despite the inherent human risks, and yet they expected NASA to go to any conceivable length to attempt a rescue mission whose odds of success were miniscule at best.

Which one is it?