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