|
 |
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:27:01 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
> news:48dbb06d$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:42:14 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> > No. Satellites falls into "unmanned" space exploration. I
>> > specifically made a distinction: Unamanned=good, manned=bad. The
>> > fringe benefits of manned exploration to unmanned is not worth
>> > carrying out manned exploration. Spend that money on unmanned, and
>> > you can launch 10 times more satellites.
>
>> One of the more significant benefits of manned exploration of space is
>> a better understanding of muscle atrophy - which has had real-world
>> practical application in disease research.
>
> Sure, because there are not aldready tens of thousands of easily
> accessible bedridden patients in hospitals already to conduct the
> research on.
Why does it need to be either/or? Those patients are used in research,
but seeing what happens to *normal* muscle mass when it's subjected to
low gravity/microgravity provides information on the progression of
muscle atrophy, which is something that would be very difficult to
simulate in a short period of time in Earth's gravity.
> If you are thinking of MARES, it mainly adresses atrophy due to
> microgravity. So it's to solve a problem that manned space exploration
> created anyway. Take out manned exploration, the artificially created
> problem goes away. Now you can use the freed funds to do research that
> actually will benefit those who suffer on earth.
Oh, I see - you've just presupposed that any scientific research out
there that you don't agree with has no possible benefit to anyone.
You're not arguing science, you're arguing religion. You *believe*
something, so it must be true, and you're not willing to be convinced
otherwise.
C'ya.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
