THE ISSUE: Steve Dunleavy’s examination of the cost of NASA’s space program versus its results.

Steve Dunleavy is correct in has assessment of NASA: It is a bunch of overpaid, under-producing, overage Trekkies (Let’s End This Space Lunacy,” Aug. 17).

What benefits have we gleaned from the space station?

But Dunleavy is wrong to state, “imagine the $110 billion going to research on heart disease, cancer or AIDS.” These diseases are well-funded and seemingly incurable.

Maybe the money should go toward repairing our infrastructure, lowering our taxes or autism or arthritis research.

If I went before Congress and stated that I would probably need $8 billion dollars a year, but spent $110 billion dollars, I’m sure I would be in a cell somewhere.

It seems that we did more with less money in the 1960s than we are doing now in space research.

Charlie Honadel
Staten Island

****

NASA has the world’s best computer programmers, materials specialists, communications experts, satellite technologists and rocket scientists – all geared to searching for signs of life on Mars.

But we refuse to use this technological strength to solve the problem of discerning roadside bombs, car bombs or improvised explosive devices that are responsible for many casualties in Iraq.

The strategic aim of the most technically advanced military force in the world is in danger of being defeated by the crudest of tactical weapons.

All the efforts of NASA should be redirected to the military problems we face in Iraq.

If those problems are not solved, there will not be a reason for any NASA program in the future.

Seymour Yusem
Manhattan

****

Dunleavy should have his own special category of dumb.

His barely readable, disjointed diatribe about NASA did nothing to further his point.

If he cannot bother to put together a cogent string of sentences, then please don’t subject us to whatever pick-a-word game he uses.

Michael Penney
The Bronx