Conference 7.286::space

>	2. Castigate them for letting the Russians and
>	   Japanese and (gasp!) the Europeans lead the
>	   way into the 21st century

Do I see some anti-European sentiment here?  Remember, if it wasn't for
European scientists who went to the US after World War 2, the US space
program would never have been the success it has been.  The German V2
rocket has served well as a basic model for a launch vehicle.  Many other 
things essential to American success had their origins in Europe - it just 
happened that America had the political will and money to develop them.

Anyway, what "right" has the US to lead the world in space?  If for some
reason its elected leadership decides (in agreement with a large part of
the population) that space is not to be treated as a black hole sucking in
tax revenues; what is so wrong with that.

I am genuinely pleased when I see American acheivement in space - but they
shout so loud that you can't help but know.  The acheivements of other 
countries should not be scoffed at.  America did not - and does not -
invent everything. 

jb

    From an old movie (probably 'Mouse that roared' or 'Mouse on the
    Moon')...
    
    Oh yeah?!? Well our German scientists can beat your German scientists
    any day!
    
    gary

    RE: .1
    
    I'm sorry.  I meant to say "and (gasp! :-) Europeans."
    
    Having shared a closer heritage with Europe, I am more comfortable
    dealing with "them".  The Soviets, on the other hand, I don't want
    to have to trust.

    I think a slight bit of myopia has crept into this topic.  Let's
    clarify a few basic facts:
    
    Fact 1 - the vast majority of people in this world just want to
    be free to live their lives as they choose.  "Americans",
    "Soviets", "Europeans", are just labels for where a person
    happens to reside, and have no bearing on that person's
    trustiworthiness (or lack thereof).
    
    Fact 2 - when people refer to the "Soviets" they really mean
    those in power in the Soviet Union.  THOSE are the ones who
    cannot be trusted, until they have learned to stop playing
    the game as bullies (yes, numerous leaders in the U.S. also
    suffer from this problem).
    
    Those of us who have enough vision to recognize humanity's
    NEED to expand into space shouldn't suffer from "borderal
    myopia".  As I remember, the Apollo-Soyuz astronauts all
    thought the "other guys" were great.  Wouldn't it be nice
    if all the politics could be dispensed with?
    

    	In regards to the 1975 APOLLO-SOYUZ mission astronauts becoming
    good friends - that is very true, and they still are friends; in
    fact, they have gotten together for several major meetings dealing
    with US-USSR cooperation in space.
    
    	Larry
    

Re: .4

I agree with the points raised.

Re: .1

I apologise if I caused offence - but I get very annoyed when I see 
Americans (or anyone else for that matter) implying that they deserve to be 
way out ahead.  Working together is much better for everyone.


Back to the original subject.  Surely the problem is that politicians often 
just think of getting re-elected at the next election.  "Short-termism" is
a rather horrible word that has emerged recently in financial circles and
it's also rife in the political world. 

The Kennedy speech that gave the goal of landing a person on the moon was 
visionary and well received.  The problems that have arisen since that was 
acheived can in part be attributed to short-termism; which has resulted in
penny-pinching, discontinuity and disllusionment.  One other problem is 
public opinion.  Landing a man on the moon was, in its time, inspirational, 
but boredom soon set in among a large section of the public.  Similarly 
with the shuttle; launches were just another news item tucked away on the 
inside pages until the Challenger accident.

What is needed is the guts to set medium to long term goals that can 
reasonably be acheived and that represent an irrevocable commitment.  
Unfortuantely the current political climate in most western countries makes 
this kind of thing very difficult, if not impossible.  The goals must have 
some clear path of progression.  The problem with the space station is that 
while it's an attractive idea, it's not much more.  It is having to cost
less and less in order to be politically acceptable.  It has become a goal
in itself without any real thinking as to what comes next; and it has been
dragged into undesirable compromises, such as military participation, to
make it more politically attractive.  In short it is a (political) mess. 

I don't even to pretend to know what the answer is.  It certainly isn't the 
one that is being trailed around Washington right now.

I hope that the people who can change things will see sense, will inspire 
the people of America and other countries, and will get going on the right 
track at full speed.

jb

    RE: I hope the people in power will see sense...
    
    That's just my point.  This hoping business isn't doing us any good.
    I feel it's time to get off our collective behinds and kick some ***!
    The politicians haven't been listening.  It is our responsibility
    to *MAKE* them listen.
    
    Stop hoping and start making some noise!
    
    Tom

    I am all in favor of trying to convince politicians of the importance
    of space.  However, I refuse to be a one issue voter.  There are
    lots of things more important than space.  Like not getting blown
    up in a nuclear war, for example.
    
    Burns
    

    	Why do you feel you (or anyone else) can only support/defend
    just one issue?
    
    	Larry
    

    I have read this and related topics in note 276.  (Suprised our
    feerless moderator has not stepped in on 276.)
    
    I agree with the original premise posted, lets quit wringin' our
    hands with "I hopes", with "let wait and see's" and middle of the
    raod "observational" strategies.  The political fact of life is
    the squeeky wheel gets the grease.
    
    The idealistic visionary strategy posted by Kenedy to place men
    on the moon can certainly get the specific job done, but where is
    the infrastructure that is so neccessary to continue.  I will vote
    against a stripped down space station because of this very premise:
     With too little or too late or lack of long range planning and
    commitments from the current political structure to make these happen
    we have seen to well from our most recent recorded history that We
    will kill people in variouse ways, or have spent a lot of money on 
    basically a contemporary art form whose function or purpose becomes
    dated or confused with the passage of time.  (Ie What is the current
    social immage of those who designed and placed the plaques on the
    voyager craft.  And again for the same craft, when the data was
    returned from voyager, did anyone really say we could have done
    it better today if we had waited?  I think not!  I feel voyager
    is a political and social paradox of the times when it was launched,
    A snapshot of a technology and planning process that is of the form
    we need for long term planning in space of cooperative compromise.)
    
    The point missed to the topic thus far is "how do we organize to
    capture the political immagination", when the scope of that immaginatory
    window is no better than 6 years but usually 2 years.  Space is pure
    immagination in the current political context.  Payback from the
    technical spinoffs are certainly out of this window, and real planning
    for safe progress in space has immaginatory windows of 20-50 years.
    
    Lets make noise is really the only way.  Kennedy made noise in the
    immagination that lived not only longer than the man, but longer
    than the decade.  I feel it is true of the political process, that
    when left to its immaginatory window will not leave behind the 
    infrastructure we *should* have had into the 80's and 90's both
    on the ground and in space.  Why must we let history repeat itself
    by doing what has proven unsuccessful and un safe for the mid 70's 
    and 80's.  Lets make noise.  Lets make noise in the immagination.
    Use a shuttle or station or mars for the slogan or banner, but
    lets all make the same amount of noise that fires our collective
    immagination to obtain the stars.
    
    
    

    re .9 and .8:  Sorry...I was much too cryptic in .8.  To give you
    an example of where I am coming from, I won't support a Space PAC
    in general because they tend to support candidates that are much
    too conservative for my beliefs in other than space issues.  If
    two candidates were running and one supported space AND SDI, while
    the other supported neither, I would have to vote for the one who
    was supporting neither, because I believe that being against SDI
    is more important than being in favor of space.
    
    Please don't let this note degenerate into the pros and cons of
    SDI.  That is not the point.  The point is that a pro-space candidate
    is not necessarily the best candidate, and I beg people to evaluate
    the candidates holistically.
    
    Burns
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!rutgers!mtune!mtuxo!tee
Subject: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Congress About It
Posted: 7 May 87 23:28:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
 
    At the annual awards banquet held on May 5 by the Princeton
section of the AIAA, Jim Harford, AIAA Executive Director, gave a talk
on "Speculations on the Soviet Space Program."  He had the usual data
showing that the US Space Program is small compared to the Soviet
Space Program (e.g., 100,000 person/hours in space compared to our
40,000; the assembly-line ability to get a booster to the pad less
than a week after an accident; the growing sophistication of their
LANDSAT equivalent; the large number of launches/year (a pie chart of
this looked much like a pie chart of long-distance networks, with the
Soviets having an ATT-like slice and the US having an MCI-like slice);
their continuing space-science program, with better space probes,
exemplified by their coordination of the International Halley's Comet
"armada"; etc.). 
 
    He had some anecdotes about the usefulness of cosmonauts in
reviving missions thought finished by malfunctioning spacecraft.  For
example, a SALYUT which was completely dead was revived by a two-man
crew who warmed it gradually back to life over 10 days, returning to
their SOYUZ about every 40 minutes because of the cold temperatures
taxing their suit-heaters excessively.  They then spent the next 10
months in the SALYUT.  Another example is the recent 3.5 hour EVA
allowing the experimental-manufacturing module to connect to MIR. 
 
    Jim also iterated the cynical thought that to work in a space
program in the near or distant future, a person better know Russian.
He thinks there aren't enough US engineers who understand Russian,
anyway (I think there are probably more Russian engineers than US
engineers who can communicate in English, much less any other
language, but I digress). (What the heck, another digression:  The
translation of "Mir" to either "peace" or "world" seems to be causing
great concern to some netters. However, the paranoid-translation gap
is not as large as one might think.  "Peace" possibly may be derived
from the Latin "pacisci, to confirm an agreement."  Knowing of our
propensity for ignoring treaties on our own turf (Cherokee, Sioux,...), 
I'm sure Soviet kids don't sleep too well knowing their government is 
negotiating peace treaties with US). 
[I doubt most of them know or care, just like American kids :^( - LK] 
 
    The AIAA does have proposals for reviving the US Space Program
which they will be trying to sell to Congress.  One interesting fact
which even a Congressman might understand is that the Soviets spend
about 25 billion $/year, with expected 15%/year increases.  If we use
the infamous letter-leverage-factor properly, Congress could get the
idea that millions of us out here know this and don't like it.  Write
your Congressman expressing your views on the space budget; this is
one of the few ways we have of influencing the future of the US Space
Program. 
 
    Supporting your favorite groups such as the National Space
Society, Space Studies Institute, AIAA, ... is also very important;
any size contribution would be appreciated, although it would be
helpful to have more heirs to the Aetna fortune interested in space
development. 
 
    FYI - the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) is a professional society of aerospace engineers and others
with more than 40000 members. If you have an interest in joining, send
a note to: 

    AIAA, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.

    Membership is 65$/year, open to anyone. Students pay some nominal
amount.  These include a subscription to AEROSPACE AMERICA, a magazine
which at times emphasizes defense-Aero more than space, but which
always has good articles relevant to space.  For example, April's
issue has a 15-page section on France's 25 years in space, and an
article on the Space Shuttle SRB fixes. 
[DISCLAIMER - I have no association whatsoever with the AIAA; I am
only presenting this article to help DEC SPACE Noters help the US
space program get back into the business of space exploration/colonization. 
- LK] 

Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee
Big Brother Pattern Matcher >> CIA DIA KGB rocket AK-47 atomic coke hash ice

Path: muscat!decwrl!labrea!aurora!ames!ll-xn!husc6!cfa!willner
From: [email protected] (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Ride report
Keywords: missions report goals uses
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 24 Aug 87 22:27:48 GMT
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Lines: 132
 
    The following article is from the August 1987 CANOPUS.  I have
posted it early and in full because of its importance.  Material in
{brackets} is from me.  I'll post the July summaries in about a week
and the August summaries about a week after that.  This article will
go to the mailing list with the rest of the August articles. 
 
    CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%[email protected]).
Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief letter estimating how many others receive
copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science
Data Center. 
 
    RIDE REPORT STRESSES PLANETARY EXPLORATION - can8873.txt - 8/23/87
 
    Planetary exploration highlights three of four "leadership
initiatives" detailed in NASA's report on "Leadership and America's
Future in Space." The report was written by ex-astronaut Sally Ride
who has left NASA to return to Stanford University. 
 
    "The United States has clearly lost leadership [in planetary
exploration and manned space flight] and is in danger of being
surpassed in many others during the next several years," the report
notes. 
 
    The Ride report follows the National Commission on Space Report
and the Rogers Commission investigation in the Challenger disaster. 
 
    "Two fundamental, potentially inconsistent views have emerged,"
reads the preface to the Ride report. "Many people believe that NASA
should adopt a major, visionary goal. They argue that this would
galvanize support, focus NASA programs, and generate excitement. Many
others believe that NASA is already overcommitted in the 1990s; they
argue that the space agency will be struggling to operate the Space
Shuttle and build the Space Station and could not handle another major
program." 
 
    The report notes that elements of both must be in the solution
since goals are needed to keep the program from floundering, and the
agency must not tackle too much. It also notes that "leadership in
space does not require that the U.S. be preeminent in all areas of
space enterprise." 
 
    NASA Administrator James Fletcher formed a task group, chaired by
Ride, to "define potential U.S. space initiatives, and to evaluate
them in the light of the current space program and the nation's desire
to regain and retain space leadership." 
 
 The four initiatives identified by the task force are:
 
   o Mission to Planet Earth.  This would involve nine platforms,
     four in polar orbit and five in geostationary orbit, to
     study the terrestrial environment and how it is shaped. The
     issues discussed are essentially those raised in the Earth
     Systems Sciences Committee in 1986. The platforms would be
     supplied by the U.S., Europe and Japan.
 
   o Exploration of the Solar System. In this category the Ride
     report endorses three missions each to address different
     aspects of the Solar System: the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid
     Flyby (primitive bodies), the CASSINI orbiter/probes to
     Saturn and Titan (outer planets), and a trio of Mars surface
     sampler missions (terrestrial planets).
 
   o Outpost on the Moon. This would be a three-phase effort
     starting with an unmanned search for ideal landing sites
     rich in oxygen-bearing ores. Included would be the Lunar
     Geoscience Observer, followed by landers and rovers. The
     second phase would have a series of week-long manned sorties
     to the surface to set up oxygen refineries. Finally, by the
     year 2010, the lunar outpost would have a permanent staff of
     30.
 
   o Humans on Mars. "This bold initiaitive is committed to the
     human exploration, and eventual habitation, of Mars." The
     goal would require the Mars surface sample missions, "an
     aggressive Space Station life sciences program," and
     development of a fast round-trip capability. Each mission
     would require two craft, a slow, unmanned cargo craft
     followed by a 6-man "sprint" ship that would make the whole
     trip, including a 10- to 20-day stay, in a year.
 
    As with many reports since the 1950s, the Ride report notes that
transportation is the single tightest bottleneck on our way to space:
"From now until the mid-1990s, Earth-to-orbit transportation is NASA's
most pressing problem." In addition to a blend of Shuttle and
expendables as launchers, the report urges that NASA develop an
unmanned cargo version of the Space Shuttle.  Such a "request for
proposals" for a Phase B study effort was released the same week as
the report by Marshall Space Flight Center. Shuttle-C, as it is
called, would be able to launch 100,000 to 150,000 pounds into low
Earth orbit. Man-rated expendables with capsules also are suggested in
the Ride report. 
 
    The report concludes by noting that its intent was not to develop
a single goal for NASA to follow. Indeed, that would cripple other
space efforts as the Space Shuttle has done.  However, space science
will have to take a back seat, the Ride report implies, until the
technology and transportation are developed to explore space with a
rational, mature strategy. 
 
    "It would not be good strategy, good science, or good policy for
the U.S. to select a single initiative, then pursue it single-
mindedly," the report states. "The pursuit of a single initiative to
the exclusion of all others results in leadership in only a limited
range of space endeavor." 
 
----
Footnotes:
 
    An interesting portion of the 63-page Ride report is the listing
of "Additional Studies" and references consulted by the task group.
Requests for copies should be addressed to the Office Of Exploration,
NASA, Washington, DC 20546. 
 
    Of the 74 workshop participants, reviewers and consultants, the
heaviest representation was from NASA headquarters -- 24 members.
Goddard Space Flight Center had 7 members, Johnson Space Center and
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory each had 6, other NASA centers had a
total of 7. The remainder were from academia and contractors. 
 
    {I can't tell from the above whether the report endorses all 4
goals, none of them in favor of working on transportation, or
something in between.  I've asked for clarification and will post if I
find out more.   --SPW}-- 

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: [email protected]

Path: muscat!decwrl!Libra!aurora!ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from July 13 AW&ST
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Aug 87 00:03:03 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 214
Posted: Mon Aug 24 20:03:03 1987
 
    Sally Ride's study team, assessing major new space goals, will
firmly endorse a Moon base as the next step in manned space
exploration.  It will also recommend an aggressive Earth-observation
program as a major priority for space science.  The team's report will
go to Fletcher early in August.  It proposes return to the Moon by the
year 2000, with the Space Shuttle, a heavylift launcher, and the Space
Station, as necessary tools.  Mars is endorsed as a desirable
long-term goal, but a manned lunar base should come first.  Reviving
planetary science will also be stressed, especially with reference to
the vigorous Soviet program;  CRAF (Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby)
and Mars sample return are identified as important, but Earth
observation -- multiple Shuttle and Station payloads, plus a number of
polar-orbit and Clarke-orbit platforms, some of them built by Europe
and Japan -- is given the #1 spot in planetary science.  The
Clarke-orbit platforms would be assembled at the Space Station. 
 
    Michael Collins [APOLLO 11], who chaired the NASA Advisory Council
group that recommended Mars, disagrees that it is necessary to go back
to the Moon before Mars.  However, he notes that his group was divided
on this issue, and that its final recommendations left open the
possibility that the Moon would be a useful intermediate step. 
 
    Ride:  "We do not really have a strategy for human exploration in
NASA. We have the Shuttle and the Station but they are not a strategy
for human exploration...the correct approach is to move slowly and
responsibly from low Earth orbit and to first explore the Moon.  There
are a lot of good reasons to go back to the Moon...The US did not
finish the job we started during the APOLLO project.  There is still a
lot of lunar exploration, lunar science, and research on advanced
technologies to be done..."  She says studies are underway on what
effects this will have on the Space Station design.  "We need a much
more robust space transportation capability than a four-Shuttle
fleet."  A Shuttle-derived heavylift launcher would suffice to get
things started, although a bigger one might be needed later.  The
"Pathfinder" technology effort should be started at once to make the
necessary new technologies ["Necessary" new technologies?  Nonsense.
Try "useful". -- HS] available in time; this may take a fight, because
the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting is against major
Pathfinder funding in FY89.  "Starting Pathfinder is something we can
do now...It does not require billions of dollars.  Until we start
Pathfinder and other key technologies we always are going to be 10-20
years from completing these goals."  Additional work on closed-cycle
life-support and human response to free-fall are particularly
important. 
 
[HOORAY!  For once, a NASA committee says something sensible!  -- HS]
 
    US and USSR will cooperate in September launch of Soviet VOSTOK
biosat, carrying rats and monkeys to study free-fall and radiation
effects.  NASA team is in Moscow to straighten out details.  US
dosimeters will be on board the satellite, and US investigators will
participate in dissection and analysis of results.  The spacecraft is
the same type that cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin rode in 1961. 
 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

Path: muscat!decwrl!labrea!aurora!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!AMES-PIONEER.ARPA!eugene
From: [email protected] (Eugene Miya N.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sally Ride's Future-of-Space Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Aug 87 23:19:11 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
Lines: 179
 
    In article <[email protected]> Tim writes:

>the panel expressed some support for this. Then Howard(?) mentioned that
>NASA management was trying to distance themselves from this report, although
>I didn't hear any details on how or why.
>
>Sorry for the (?) and lack of details, but I thought even this sketchy report 
>would be of some interest. Does anyone have more information on this? If
>Ride's report was intended to back some predisposition on the part of NASA's
>management toward the megabuck-Mars proposals, I might understand why they
>would distance themselves from the report. It was heartening to hear of a
>NASA report which backs much of the sentiment of recent sci.space articles,
>but disheartening to also hear that it would probably be ignored by NASA
>management.
>-- 
>Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee
 
    Not one for conspiracy theories, you should understand, and the
rest of the net, that NASA is just another bureaucracy.  Sally Ride,
McCulla [noted below], nor I can speak policy.  It's not that NASA is
distancing for denial, it's trying distancing to give Dr. Ride credit,
while saying: "This is not our plan yet."  It will not be ignored.  It
will be cited in more bureaucratic reports in the future, and perhaps,
some day, this citation will come true.  This is how the Viking lander
came about, and how Magellan came about, and so on.  There are alot of
tidal forces forcing acting in different directions for future
projects.  What happens ten years from now depends on the persistence
of those who stick with their projects.  There are other messages
inside NASA floating around giving her credit and wish her good luck. 
Don't forget that sci.space does not represent the current thinking of
any space Agency: ESA, Soviet, JSA, etc. [How many do you think are
working on FTL travel?] 
 
    From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
 
--eugene miya (agency puppet?)
  NASA Ames Research Center
  [email protected]
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
 
Attached:
 
Subject: Q & A/Ride Report
Approved: telemail
 
Aug. 17, l987
 
TO:      Bill Sheehan
         Shirley Green
 
FROM:    Jim McCulla
 
SUBJECT: Q&A: The Sally Ride Report 
 
    Here are questions and answers concerning the Sally Ride Report. 
Any further questions should be referred to Alan Ladwig at
(202)453-8435.  The questions are as follows: 
 
Q. For the last year and a half there has been a great deal of talk at
conferences and in publications that Mars should be the next big
objective.  Virtually no one has been talking about the moon.  Does
Sally's endorsement of going to the moon before Mars that this is the
route that NASA wishes to take?  Is she speaking for the organization?
 
A. No. She is speaking for herself and her study group.  NASA will
make recommendations to the President only after we have examined the
four initiative areas she has outlined very carefully.  We need to
know a great deal more about the technology required,
interrelationships between initiatives, cost, possible international
participation, impact on on-going programs, manpower requirements both
in numbers and skills and so on.  The chief reason we announced the
new Office of Exploration a few weeks ago was to carry on these
further studies in the manned flight areas.  Other aspects of the
initiatives will be examined by other offices in NASA, such as Space
Science and Applications and Space Flight.  Having said all this, I
should note that the recommendations of Sally and her group are based
on prolonged study by a largey deserve special consideration. 
 
Q. Can you give us some indication as to when you will be ready to go
to the President? 
 
A. That is difficult to predict.  I can assure you, however that these
continuing examinations are not back burner projects.  They have top
priority.  It would be hard to keep our people from giving them top
priority if we wished otherwise.  Our people want to get going. 
 
Q. Sally says in this report that although that no one is going to the
moon or Mars for a number of years, it is important to start
preliminary work now.  One thing she recommended is development of a
heavy lift launch vehicle, and she specifies a Shuttle derived vehicle.
Can you brief us on what is happening to this proposal?  Doesn't the
Air Force oppose it? 
 
A. We have taken the first step in this project and the Air Force does
not oppose it.  Last week, after consultation with the Air Force and
the OMB, we announced that we were going ahead with a study to
determine whether a Shuttle-derived cargo vehicle - the Shuttle C -
would be useful in launching space station elements thus freeing the
Shuttle for more manned scientific activity. The information will be
melded into another heavy lift study being led by the Air Force with
NASA participation which 
 
To put this another way, NASA's Shuttle C study will concentrate on a
vehicle that could use existing systems and facilities.  The Air
Force-led ALS study concentrates on systems incorporating advanced
technologies.  The results of both studies will be integrated to allow
a steering group to formulate a national heavy lift vehicle strategy
that might best accommodate near-term requirements, such as Space
Station assembly, as well as long term. 
 
Q. In this report Sally echoes a recommendation already made by a
number of organizations - that work begin immediately on advanced
technology required for the future missions.  In fact, she says that
if you delay a start on the technology you can delay human exploration
of the moon or Mars for two decades.  Do we understand correctly that
you have twice proposed a start on a thing called Project Pathfinder
and have twice been ordered to pull back the funding request?  Do you
intend to do it again? 
 
A. It is true that we twice sent Pathfinder packages to OMB for
inclusion in our budget submission to Congress, and that the proposals
did not go beyond that.  However, there were other big issues in
consideration at those time, like the Space Shuttle recovery and
initiation of the mixed fleet.  Also, there was growing anticipation
of this and other studies of long-term goals and, therefore,
Pathfinder did not get the strongest emphasis. Now it will be
considered in the context of this and other reports strongly
recommending immediate attention to new technology.  
 
Q. Aren't you running the danger of disappointing a lot of people by
building up expectations of new adventures without any real prospect
of getting started?  Is the White House going to give you more money
for new rockets, artificial intelligence, smart robots, and all that
good stuff?  Only last week the President said again that reducing the
deficit was his  number one priority.  What would be the effect, for
example, if you propose Pathfinder again and it gets turned down? 
Isn't that a signal that the top policy makers really don't believe in
the necessity of giving the space effort greater momentum; that all
this current talk is just a lot of smoke and mirrors? 
 
A. People have to understand that a major new space project will not
be something you accomplish in just a few years.  We are talking about
huge programs requiring long-term, consistent support from succeeding
administrations and congresses.  As far as Pathfinder goes, I have no
doubt that once everyone is agreed on taking a bold new step in space
we will get the start-up funding.  And by agreement I don't mean
agreement on a specific project involving the moon or mars, but rather
agreement that the nation needs to take a big step whatever that turns
out to be. 
 
Q. Why does the country have to take a big new step?
 
A. Lots of reasons: 
 
     a. To maintain U.S. leadership in space. 
     b. To drive national economic development based on new
        technology.
     c. To advance scientific knowledge in numerous areas. 
     d. To protect global habitability.
     e. To advance international cooperation and reduce the 
        causes of international conflict. 
     f. To energize our society and avoid intellectual 
        stagnation.
 
Q. What do you personally want NASA to do?  Go to the Moon?  Mars?  Do
the other things she recommends? 
 
A. I agree with her that we have to help preserve the environment and
keep up our outstanding Moon or Mars, either place would be a
productive undertaking and a great adventure.  Let's see how the
studies come out. 

Path: muscat!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!think!craig
From: [email protected] (Craig Stanfill)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Things aint so bad
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 31 Aug 87 17:49:26 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected] (Craig Stanfill)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 54
 
    Bashing the U.S. space program seems to be very much in vogue
these days.  Our long-term position, it has been claimed, has badly
deteriorated, this being a result of short-sighted policy making. 
 
    I beg to disagree.
 
    The problems in our current space program are not the result of
short-sightedness so much as long-sightedness on the part of NASA
coupled with blindness on the part of Congress; our problems are not
so much long-term as short-term. 
 
    What do I mean?
 
    Even granting its problems, we DO have the Space Shuttle; no-one
else presently has anything nearly as zippy.  This is an important
long-term asset.  The problem is that it is not as good in the
short-term as had been billed; NASA oversold the STS as the sole
solution to our near-term orbital needs.  This led to the disasterous
policy of scrapping our expendible launch capability. 
 
    I speculate that this happened because of NASA's judgement that, a
re-usable space transport is, in the long term, essential.  The
problem came about when NASA's vision came into collision with
Congress's blindness with respect to funding the space program; to get
the shuttle at all, they had to oversell it.  This also led to the
CHALLENGER 51-L accident; NASA got out onto a limb in overselling the
shuttle initially; they were under intense pressure to deliver on
their promises.  So, when technical problems kept causing schedule
slip, NASA got sloppy. 
 
    So where are we left?
  
    We have some serious short-term (the next 5 years) problems; U.S.
space activity has ground to a halt, and will not recover for a while.
However, recovery is certain, provided sufficient money is
forthcoming.  Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift
vehicles; there is no fundamental problem stamping out more TITANs and
designing a new heavy-lift vehicle.  A few years and a few billion
dollars, and our short-term problems will be solved. 
 
    The real long-term problem is Congress:  They have to realize that
space is the growth industry of the 21st Century; that we have certain
short term needs, but that if they don't provide enough money to solve
both short-term and long-term problems, one or the other will suffer. 
Fortunately (or we would be in fundamentally bigger trouble than we
are now), NASA succeeded (in the 1970s) in keeping the focus on the
long term problems with the Shuttle program. 
 
    If congress forces NASA to focus on our short-term problems, but
does not provide sufficient money to attack both the short-term and
long-term, we are doomed to lose, and all our 30-year old space
program will have done is to have created yet another industry for the
Japanese to come in and kick our butts in.