To the editor: With all due respect to visitor contributor Christopher Cokinos, our nation can proceed funding NASA at its present ranges or we will proceed funding SpaceX at its ever-increasing ranges, however we can’t do each (“To dumbly go where no space budget has gone before,” April 29).
Cokinos quotes Casey Dreier of the Pasadena-based Planetary Society as saying, “That is an extinction-level occasion for the Earth- and space-science communities …” And he would in all probability be right. Nevertheless, proper now I’m extra involved with the already current extinction-level occasions taking place to our Earth’s science and its scientists. Sure, I do imagine people yearn for connection to the universe, however proper now most are in all probability craving for a liveable dwelling base.
Paula Del, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Once I was about 9 years previous, my father took me to an open home on the former Rockwell Worldwide plant in Downey, the place we acquired to view components of NASA’s house shuttle. I used to be in awe of the thought of house journey and was instructed with a purpose to pursue a profession in that discipline, I would wish to have a powerful math background. In consequence, math turned my favourite topic. Just a few years later, I earned a level in arithmetic and had a rewarding profession as a highschool math instructor.
I typically surprise about what number of different youngsters my age have been impressed to pursue a profession in math and science due to the work of NASA. The choice to not put money into NASA hurts economically and doesn’t serve our pursuits in creating the subsequent technology of STEM professionals.
Jason Y. Calizar, Torrance
