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.