Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!rabbit!wolit From: wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: SPACE STATION ALERT Message-ID: <2578@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 11:51:41 EST Article-I.D.: rabbit.2578 Posted: Thu Mar 8 11:51:41 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Mar-84 02:05:48 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 57 > The building of a space station is long overdue. > The U.S. should have built a space station YEARS ago. Going to the moon > was fine, but a space station would have set us up for some serious > space exploration. > Each any and every penny spent on space exploration in general and a space > station in particular is WELL worth it. Those who do not believe this > are hopelessly stuck in the past (though there will always be those who > are - the best we can hope is to prevent them from stopping us). > What alternative do YOU suggest to building a space station? > -- > Clyde W. Hoover @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas > (Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots) My, what persuasive arguments you have! I still haven't heard what we'd be getting from a space station that's worth even ONE penny, no less "each and every". Just a lot of arm waving and shouting (as if to dead parrots), but no particulars. On the other hand: 1. We've done just fine exploring space without a space station. In fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all. Examples: the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series. We've returned lunar soil samples with robot probes, photographed the moons of Saturn, all for a LOT less than it would have cost for manned missions, and all without a space station. 2. Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space science. Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions of dollars. Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist, etc., what she'd rather have the money spent on. Scientists are not the ones behind a station. 3. Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to swallow. Face it, they want a military base in space before the Russkies get one. They also want it in NASA's budget so the War Department's budget doesn't look quite so bad, and so us geeks can feel like we're supporting science instead of a military machine. 4. If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the companies that will benefit from a station fund it. That's called "investment", and it's the basis of capitalism, which is good, right? Frankly, I don't see the market for perfectly round plastic beads as so promising, but if DuPont wants to pay for it, more power to them. We didn't pay for all the communication satellites that are up there making money, why should we suddenly be getting into the space business business now? (Answer: because the companies concerned either don't think there's any profit in it any more than I do, or they'd rather have us suckers shoulder the risk so they can reap the profits later.) OK, let's hear your arguments, if you have any. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ