You keep changing the subject.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : (D.K.) wrote:
: :
: : :P.S. First American woman in space was what - 20 years after
: : :Tereshkova?
: :
: : Yes, the difference being that we didn't send one until she had an
: : actual purpose in being there. 'Parachute packer in a can' as a
: : 'first' is hardly something to be beating your chest about.
: :
: :Sour grapes?
:
: Not hardly.
:
: :I believe that in addition to the obvioous political political
: urpose, they even manufactured a set of 'opportunity knocks'
: :scientific, medical, purposes for launching her.
:
: As I understood it, she was sealed in with instructions not to touch
: anything.
:
:So how does that contradict, or affect the validity of anything
:which I said, even in the scientific field? After all did orbiting
:Laika by the russians, or the monkeys and apes by the USA not provide
:valuable biometric data?

Not especially, no, as I understand it. We sent up monkeys first
because we were afraid something would go wrong with the vehicle and
kill the occupant, and monkeys are generally more expendable than
fighter pilots.

I suspect the Soviet reason for sending a dog was similar.

What ever the reasons for the launch (flight). I find it surprising
that you dismiss the value of any data, collected from the 'experiments'
which I have mentioned. I would like to read what you consider to have
been the 'true' purposes of these launches, and what alternative
experiments you would have sent up as the payloads of these launches.


: :As a slight parallel, What was the purpose of Senator John
: :Glenns' 1998, STS-95 return trip into space?
:
: Funding. He's a Senator and can help get it raised.
:
: [And no, we shouldn't have sent him, either. But you don't see us
: touting it as a great 'victory'.
:
:I think that AARP is

Perhaps. No doubt they're enamoured of "Pukin' Jake" Garn, too.
Both of those flights, however, were pure fund raisers and should
never have happened.

[Jake Garn *was* a study subject, by the way. They were studying
space sickness. He was a 'good' subject.]

What do you see as the actual purposes of these launches and payloads.
What more useful alternatives would you propose for the expenditure
of the resources?

: However, in your case, I suppose you have to grab what little glory
: you can find wherever you can find it.]
:
:Indeed! I will revel and bask in any glory that I can garner
:And I won't in any small and mean spirited way deny the fame, glory
:and credit due to the space pioneers of any beings in this universe.

There are heros and then there are heros. It's not particularly
heroic if you don't understand what's going on when it happens to you.

When you ask most 'heros' about what they did, the usual answer is
roughly, "**** happened and I did what I had to do. Heroic? I almost
fainted when it was all over!"

'Heroes' is your term introduced into the discussion so that you can
have aand straw 'man' target to demolish.
I have simply refered to them as pioneers.
Not heroes according to your derscription, but brave individuals
who knowing the dangers to them nevertheless chose to face those
risks to do what they did. They didn't act spontaneously because
'**** happened' rather they acted in a calculated risk taking mode.
--
Rostyk