U.S. Space Exploration

Re “Space Is the Romance, Orbiting Jalopies the Reality,” editorial, July 26:

In the late 1960s, there were a few of us (a very few) who had the view much the same as you expressed in your editorial, i.e., the greatest return on investment in space from a scientific point of view is for NASA to go the unmanned space route. However, as a long-range planner at Douglas Aircraft Co. at that time, I had to recognize the political aspects of the Cold War, e.g., after the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy had to recoup his, and the nation’s, political losses. He looked at his options. What could be more romantic (your word) and most easily sold to the American people than putting a man on the moon and counter the Russian space effort.

It is only natural that at the end of the Cold War, NASA would have to face reality and put money to better use, i.e., unmanned space.

As a taxpayer I still resent the large effort by NASA to glorify the benefits of the scientific fallout of manned space, though it was substantial. But still it all went to winning the Cold War.

ROBERT MILTON, Corona del Mar

*

Going into space is not only romantic, but a necessity. Sending people into space is like having a test pilot flying a new design. The objective is to find out problems.

Cheaper does not mean it is better. The Mir mission and the Pathfinder mission each had their own objectives. They both contributed to the progress of humanity. Technologies keep the U.S. ahead of other countries. Space programs have created a stable environment for scientists and engineers to advance their knowledge.

PATRICK CHENG, Rancho Palos Verdes