Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocse.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocse!dls From: dls@hocse.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: space station Message-ID: <152@hocse.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Mar-84 15:21:37 EST Article-I.D.: hocse.152 Posted: Fri Mar 9 15:21:37 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 05:43:20 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 128 To Jan Wolitzky: I did miss the two earlier arguments, and tend to agree that the proponents arguments are a tad on the weak side. Lets see if I can do better: > >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. It is certainly true that we can *explore* space using dinky robot probes. It is also true that in the short run, it will cost less. However, the large scale exploitation of space resources probably cannot occur without a substantial human presence in space. The man vs machine debate has been going on for a long time, and the best answer usually turns out to be "a combination of both is optimal for any given goal." The best example I can give of the value of having humans in space is the recent Spacelab that had trouble with an expensive, complex camera. On an all automatic probe, that might have been the end of things. As it was, an astronaut crawled into his sleeping bag, zipped it shut, and fixed the camera BY TOUCH! I suggest that having human beings in an orbital lab with industry standard equipment may well be more more effective and less expensive than large amounts of all automatic, special-built, inflexible machinery. >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. This is a standard argument, and is fundamentally wrong. Scientists would LIKE TO BELIEVE that money taken from manned space fight would go toward unmanned probes. It is much more likely that the money would go toward "social services" or "defense" depending on which side is stronger. It has seemed that in the past the science budget grew with the overall space budget and shrank with the overall space budget. I suggest that scientists are no less self-serving than any other group. To advance their careers as planetologists, they'd love to see Titan probes. This DOES NOT MEAN that Titan probes should be our first priority. If I had to choose between a Titan probe and the investigation of the resources of LEO, GEO, the Moon, or the near-Earth crossing asteroids, I think the Titan probe would come in last. A compromise can be worked out, and the lastest NASA plan for unmanned planetary exploration recognizes for the first time the role of probes in investigating the resources of the moon and asteroids. >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. This argument ignores the actual situation. The Pentagon has consistently opposed a space station on the grounds that it is vulnerable. Reagan has asked that the station be non-military and international. I agree Reagan is not the most pro-science guy in the world, but I'm not going to let that fact affect my position on a space station, a particle accelerator, a genetics lab, or any other project the Reagan administration is involved in. >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, why should we suddenly > be getting into the space business business now? 1)However great the possible commercial benefits of space, if companies a)have no protection from foreign attack or interference and b)have no clear ground rules concerning taxes and liability they are not likely to take any risks. Reagan is not just pushing a space station, he is pusing a uniform policy which supports the commericalization of space. This county has a history of building canals, railroads, highways, etc. in the belief that their long term economic benefit would more than repay any current cost to the public treasury. This has paid off handsomely in the past, and the shuttle/space station are the modern day equivalent of a railroad and a refueling station. 2)We(NASA, the government, you and I) DID pay for all the early communications satellites! It may be true that we didn't pay for the ones up there now, but we don't get the money or take the risk either. Materials processing in space(including pharmaceuticals far more important than the perfectly round spheres) is at the same stage communications satellites were in 1963. 3)This country is competing in space with heavily subsidized, national combines in both Europe and Japan. The government should lead the way in this competition, or we run the risk of ending up importing everything. You could write a book on all the reasons why a space station is important(nay, critical)to mankind's future in space. There are MANY important arguments I have not the time or the room to mention. Someone did write a book, and the book is "Project Space Station" by Dr. Brian O'Leary. It is available from Stackpole books, Cameron and Kelker Streets, P.O.Box 1831, Harrisburg PA 17105 for $12.95. Dr. O'Leary OPPOSED THE SHUTTLE for a lot of your arguments, but has since CHANGED HIS MIND. I highly recommend the book, especially to people with no clear idea why a space station is so important. Dale L Skran, At&T ISL, Holmdel.