Kim, those are all excellent points. In a perfect or at least more idealistic world, scientific exploration would be pursued for its own sake. Unfortunately though we don't live on the Earth that exists in Star Trek. In fact, I personally highly doubt that a visit from a benevolent alien species would unite the countries of the world like it did in the Star Trek universe. Sadly, I'm not even sure a visit from a malevolent alien race would be enough to unite this planet. Look at the history of human kind, I'm pretty sure there has never been a time when all living humans were united and had a unity of purpose. It's just human nature for some group to want power over another and for one group to succumb to the temptation to exploit another group in order to obtain power and wealth. And beyond that even, everyone is different and sees things differently so it would be nothing short of a miracle to get everyone on the planet, or even just all the world leaders to agree, in my humble opinion. So even though it's not the ideal way, the way to get things done is to compromise and to get as much support for your idea as you can by showing people how it will benefit them personally. That's how we have to get things done in the world in which we live. I don't like it any more than you do, believe me. But I've learned over the years, you have to work within the existing system to get things done while at the same time working to change the existing system for the better. Your point about the costs of the space program are very valid, in my opinion. And no, Thiokol shouldn't get contracts just because of our congressional delegation, they should only get contracts if they are the best company for the job. They shouldn't be overpricing their contract fees just so that the upper management can get huge bonuses every year even if the company isn't performing. But that ties in with what I said in the first paragraph about human nature, power & greed. Thiokol, or any other company, should only be chosen if they want to work along with NASA to develop better ways of doing things and they are the best equipped for doing that. I think that's about my 10 cents or so for the day. Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote: Kurt, I know that you are not necessarily trying to justify space exploration or any other scientific endeavor by citing the benefits, so don't misunderstand the following. In fact, I believe that scientific exploration should be pursued for its own sake, as no doubt you and many others on this list may also feel. For me, citing such benefits does not justify the costs. Similar benefits typically follow any kind of exploration. For example, the West learned of paper, gunpowder and moveable type by first exploring and then trading with the inhabitants of the Far East. I also don't believe that they should be used as justification for continuing NASA's present course of human space exploration. I believed strongly that it was time to change course before we were burdened with the Space Shuttle and the ISS boondoggles. Now we have more compelling reasons to reverse course. Benefits will follow, I have no doubt. But let's not use the benefits from past successes or the anticipation of future benefits to justify any effort. Let's explore for exploration's sake. Let's do it in a reasonable manner. Let's do it as citizens of Earth, and not as citizens of the US or Europe or China or Russia. And let's hold our politicians to a higher standard. Thiokol shouldn't get juicy space contracts just because we have a congressional delegation that can ensure them, nor should that be the case for any other contractor. That kind of thinking has accelerated the cost of space exploration more than any other. (Take a breath now Kim.) Phew! Hey Chuck, talk about pontificating! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com