Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________GROUND THE ASTRONAUTS BY DAVID BEERS (10/14/97)

This is in response to your strangely narrow-minded and short-sighted article on space travel. Whoever wrote this seems to think that humanity will always be able to simply populate one planet in the solar system. Did Columbus send robots to America? Humans by their very nature will rise to the challenge of pushing back any frontier, and that includes space.
Let's face it, humans are not getting any fewer. Eventually, we are going to have to become capable of interstellar flight if we are to continue to progress. Just as the ancients had to build boats and wagons to build civilization, so must we find ways of not only exploring, but actually colonizing places beyond this little rock. To think that this can all be accomplished through a bunch of cameras with arms is not only short-sighted but dangerous. Just as nothing could hold back America's westward expansion, nothing will hold us back from eventually settling other planets. This isn't just some adolescent science fiction reader talking either. I simply see what must be done, and hope that you all can see it also.
-- Monte Gardner

_______________THE CASSINI PROBE BY DAVID FUTRELLE (09/22/97)

The dangers of a plutonium-powered space probe is an important issue and I agree with many things Mr. Futrelle says, but I take exception to a couple of points.
When Mr. Futrelle says, "If we've learned anything, it is that we know the world less completely than scientists are generally prone to think." I wonder who the "we" he speaks of might be? All the non-scientists in the world? If so, is it by some inherent quality in scientists that they are apparently unable to see/comprehend those things that have led others to skepticism towards science? I should think that scientists themselves are painfully aware of the humanity of their endeavors and, therefore, the fallibility therein. Skepticism is one of the foundations of science, particularly the variety that's cast inward.
Also, the propulsion system in Orion Project never was meant for atmospheric use. Even if someone did suggest it, most serious discussion surrounding that concept assumed it would be used only in space. A chemical rocket would be needed to get it that far initially.
-- B. Strand
SALON | Oct. 21, 1997

R E C E N T L Y+| EXPECTING THE WORST By Jennifer Reese

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________GROUND THE ASTRONAUTS BY DAVID BEERS (10/14/97)
	This is in response to your strangely narrow-minded and short-sighted article on space travel. Whoever wrote this seems to think that humanity will always be able to simply populate one planet in the solar system. Did Columbus send robots to America? Humans by their very nature will rise to the challenge of pushing back any frontier, and that includes space. Let's face it, humans are not getting any fewer. Eventually, we are going to have to become capable of interstellar flight if we are to continue to progress. Just as the ancients had to build boats and wagons to build civilization, so must we find ways of not only exploring, but actually colonizing places beyond this little rock. To think that this can all be accomplished through a bunch of cameras with arms is not only short-sighted but dangerous. Just as nothing could hold back America's westward expansion, nothing will hold us back from eventually settling other planets. This isn't just some adolescent science fiction reader talking either. I simply see what must be done, and hope that you all can see it also. -- Monte Gardner
_______________THE CASSINI PROBE BY DAVID FUTRELLE (09/22/97)
	The dangers of a plutonium-powered space probe is an important issue and I agree with many things Mr. Futrelle says, but I take exception to a couple of points. When Mr. Futrelle says, "If we've learned anything, it is that we know the world less completely than scientists are generally prone to think." I wonder who the "we" he speaks of might be? All the non-scientists in the world? If so, is it by some inherent quality in scientists that they are apparently unable to see/comprehend those things that have led others to skepticism towards science? I should think that scientists themselves are painfully aware of the humanity of their endeavors and, therefore, the fallibility therein. Skepticism is one of the foundations of science, particularly the variety that's cast inward. Also, the propulsion system in Orion Project never was meant for atmospheric use. Even if someone did suggest it, most serious discussion surrounding that concept assumed it would be used only in space. A chemical rocket would be needed to get it that far initially. -- B. Strand SALON \| Oct. 21, 1997