Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?
From: Michael McCulloch (michaelm_at_nospam.invalid.net)
Date: 07/04/04
- Next message: Rod Mollise: "Summer Skywatch READY"
- Previous message: Kelly Beatty: "Re: High attrition rate"
- In reply to: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Next in thread: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Reply: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:19:40 -0400
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 20:58:26 GMT, "Jon Kickerston" <none@nospam.com>
wrote:
>The environment continues to crumble (as evidenced by
>cancers, etc), society continues to degrade, and population continues its
>increase. That last factor, population, would be the single most limiting
>factor against living forever.
The world is what it is. If you do not like it, then try your best to
make your part of it better. Fatalistic thinking, whatever its source,
will get you nowhere in life. Take it from someone who knows. ;-)
Yes, the Cassini is expensive and probably cost more than necessary
for various reasons that had nothing to do with science. However, I
find the quest for knowledge worth the expense overall.
Imagine if we can get a decent picture from the surface of Titan. That
could be an amazing sight.
--- Michael McCulloch
- Next message: Rod Mollise: "Summer Skywatch READY"
- Previous message: Kelly Beatty: "Re: High attrition rate"
- In reply to: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Next in thread: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Reply: Jon Kickerston: "Re: Cassini: its cost and purpose?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|