Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al
From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: space station
Message-ID: <174@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 16:10:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.174
Posted: Tue Mar 13 16:10:48 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 20:26:56 EST
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 67



Falacy 1.  We've done just fine exploring space without a space station.  In
	   fact, we've done fine without man at all.

Much of what we know about the Sun is derived from data collected by the
Skylab solar telescope.  Most of what we know about Lunar soil is from
samples returned by astronauts.  We've learned a great deal about the Moon
from experiments carried out in situ and instruments left on the Moon.
Space station is essential to answer many questions life scientists have
about the role gravity plays in living organisms.  There are plans for
several large telescopes that cannot be built without space station or
something like it.  Space telescope will depend on shuttle astronauts
for refurbishment, repair, and instrument changeout.  If all goes well
on the next mission, Solar Max will become useful because of man in
space.

Falacy 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.

Space science funding has been a more or less constant percentage of
the total NASA budget.  In the late seventies and early eighties when
NASA's budget declined so did that of space science.  It was blamed
on the shuttle, but the facts are that space scientists were not
making their case before Congess.  Fortunately, this situation
has changed.  If you ask a life scientist or materials scientist about
the space station you might get a very different answer than from the
disciplines you mentioned.  If you really want to take money from
one department and give to space science, why don't you pick on DOD?
If we all pull together we can do great things.  If the space 
science folks insist on back biting space station it will weaken
the entire space effort.

Falacy 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. 

DOD opposed space station when the chips were down.  They were never
that enthusiastic and eventually gave a presentation against the station
to the White House.  Proof of the pudding is the heavy emphasis Reagan
put on international participation.  DOD doesn't want international
participation for security reasons.  Incidentally, DOD is shying away
from shuttle because of the publicity on the flights.  I suspect Reagan
wants space station primarily for prestige and commercial activities.
A bit of trivia, the final White House vote on space station had only
one aye vote, the President's.  Turned out it was the only vote that
counted.

Falacy 4.  If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
    companies that will benefit from a station fund it.
    We didn't pay for all the communication
    satellites that are up there making money.

NASA did lead the way in communication satellites and continues to
do research in support of advanced communication technologies.  Building
basic infrastructure, such as space station, and doing long lead time
research and development is a function that government performs well.
The tax return on the increased economic activity usually, and in the
case of the space program has, been in excess of the original government
investment.  The auto industry is a classic case.  The auto industry
would have gotten no where if the government hadn't built the roads.
In turn, the government taxes gas and recoups a sizable portion of
it's investment.