Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-phy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Physics:els From: els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Space Station opposition Message-ID: <1241@pur-phy.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 14:01:32 EST Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1241 Posted: Wed Mar 14 14:01:32 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 07:33:47 EST Organization: Purdue University Physics Dept. Lines: 99 Some general things need to be said about the discussion over the space station (and in particular to Jan Wolitsky)... a) The military sector has been among the most strident opponents of the space station. The claim is that they can do just fine with the shuttle and their current inventory of boosters. More likely, they can see money being shifted away from the quiet subsidy of some of their activities by NASA money. b) Scientists are not the ones behind the station???? Come off it!! Astronomers very definitely want and need a space station. The manned presence nearby an orbiting observatory will mean greater flexibility in data gathering, since an arbitrarily large number of instruments may be available to put into the focal plane. Space telescope will require a shuttle launch to change instruments. There are also a number of short duration events (some of which are totally random, such as gamma ray burstars) for which astronomers would love to have data ranging over the entire spectrum. Since some regions of the spectrum are only visible from space, and since some of these observations would require someone present to make minute by minute changes, a space station is the only logical choice. The only other alternative, if you're willing to pay for it, is to pay to boost a Cray up along with the massive amount of other equipment required to maintain it. What planetologist would'nt drool over the possibility of putting 15,000 kg of instruments in orbit about his/her favorite planet? The shuttle could take an instrument or two in spare space for many flights, gradually building up quite an inventory at the space station. Then, a group of researchers could essentially call the space station and have a probe made to order. Then only one special shuttle flight might be needed to get a booster up for the probe. Climatologists would want someone up there, since many important atmospheric phenomena are so fleeting that by the time the data from an unmanned satellite are analysed and the researcher sees what is going on, it is probably too late to get more detailed data. Another point I regarding astronomy. One of the big projects of the next 20 or so years will be the construction of large baseline interferometers in orbit, allowing nearby stars to be resolved as well as our Sun was resolved in the early part of this century. Anyone who has ever worked with a Michelson interferometer knows that you need to continuously coax it to remain in alignment. This necessitates having someone in orbit to maintain the device (though, admittedly the job will be easier since the device is very well isolated from most possible disturbances). c) We've done just fine using unmanned missions?? By whose definition? How much would we know about elementary particles or semiconductors or ... , if we told a scientist that he could spend as much time and money as he or she liked on a particular experiment, but could only run that experiment for ONE HOUR IN A LIFETIME!! In addition, tell the experimenter the there will be no access to the equipment, no matter what sort of piece breaks down. Add to this the restriction that the equipment must be subjected to all sorts of wild stresses AND must weigh less than 500 lbs. AND must be no larger than a large suitcase. How much science could you do???? FLAME ON! Now we come to a truly silly statement that has nothing to do with the space station. How can any rational human being maintain that the President is trying to remove evolution from biology texts?? How do you spell that? P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D!!!!!! There are, of course, those few who wish to put the Creation story into the texts, but I seriously doubt they can succeed. There are also those who are writing biology texts who put forth evolution as if it is true. I think this is much more dangerous than the Creationists, as this undermines the teaching of critical thought and scientific method to our children. Evolution is NOT true! It also is NOT false! Evolution is merely a theory!! As with any other theory, it needs to continually be checked by new experiments and methods. In fact, experimentally, I would probably have a better case of raising General Relativity to the level of absolute truth! It must be remembered that there have been theories in the past that have apparently matched the data, but were totally wrong. Aah! That felt good! FLAME OFF! On the subject of manned vs. unmanned, the comparison of spinoffs of one to the other is a case of the proverbial apples and oranges. The two sorts of spaceflight put different restrictions on equipment and therefore force different sorts of innovation. After all, we expect to get the manned vehicle back, but all we get back from unmanned missions are a whole bunch of electronic impulses( excluding a few expensive sample return missions). I hope that further discussions on this topic will keep this in mind. (`') (`') \\ _____ // Writing cause I got work, hanging by \\ / \ // my bruised and mangled thumbs at the \/ O O \/ off-the-wall teddy bear keyboard of | o | \_____/ ERIC STROBEL /|+++|\ //-----\\ decvax!pur-ee!Physics:els // \\ (_^_) (_^_)