> I believe it was Jon who commented that the NASA
> scientists and engineers associated with the probe
> missions are folks who were enthusiasts as youngsters
> and "never grew up."
>
> I don't understand.
>
> Are they immature because they're scientists and not,
> I don't know, accountants? You mentioned your
> appreciation of "Star Trek". It seems odd to enjoy
> the exploits of fictional crew on a fictional craft
> but come down so hard on real people accomplishing
> real things of lasting intellectual / scientific
> value.
[snip]
>
> I don't care for the manned missions, but the robots
> are the real deal.
>
>
> But I suppose I'm nearly alone in this opinion.
No, I agree with you about the scientific value of "person-less" (is that the PC term -- or maybe "un-personned"?) space exploration, which is certainly much cheaper than trying to send members of the species Homo sapiens (totally genderless-term) out there, and if the scientists are right, will ultimately give us much more scientific yield anyway. And to me, the coolest thing is that we are gradually getting closer to discovering Earth-like planets in other solar systems, and even analyzing their atmospheres to see if they contain Earth-like industrially generated pollution, etc. As well as, of course, learning more and more about the early period after the Big Bang. It's a shame that the Hubble telescope will have to be shut down before its natural lifetime, but I assume that it will eventually be replaced by even more capable instruments.
But imagine how the scene that we have been witnessing with the robot "Spirit" would play out if it were a personned mission, and it were not a relatively simple computer glitch but a problem that the astronauts couldn't fix with what they brought with them and which couldn't be fixed by remote control from earth. Since it would be impossible to send a "rescue" mission, we would have the thrill of watching them slowly starve (or, if they were lucky, die more quickly from lack of oxygen).
My impression about this space exploration business (maybe I'm wrong) is that it's not so much the working scientists in the field that have this attitude I criticize; they're the ones advocating the robotic approach. It seems to be the non-scientists in the NASA establishment who are pushing so hard for H. sapiens to get out and roam the universe.
As for Star Trek, I like it *as* fiction; after all, it's set in the 24th century, after -- it is made very clear -- all the social problems on earth have been solved. (Roddenberry's idea was to show a completely egalitarian, non-racist, non-sexist, non-nationalistic utopia in an popularly entertaining package. Yes, the name of the space ship was "Enterprise," which has caused endless snickering among anti-capitalist pop culture critics, and in the original series the dames were all gorgeous and dressed in skimpy costumes, but as successive series were developed, it's interesting to note that the average age of the women tended to increase and their costumes tended to cover up more.)
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax