[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::space

Title:	Space Exploration
Notice:	Shuttle launch schedules, see Note 6
Moderator:	PRAGMA::GRIFFIN

Created:	Mon Feb 17 1986
Last Modified:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	974
Total number of notes:	18843

285.0. "The DoD and U.S. Space Station" by VINO::DZIEDZIC () Thu Apr 23 1987 08:54

    (Forgive me if this topic appears elsewhere, I just had an intense
    desire to vent my spleen this morning . . . )
    
    The resident asshole of Defense, Caspar Whineburger, is probably
    going to screw up any chance of the US developing a multi-national
    space station.  Seems old Caspar wants everyone to agree the US
    would have full rights to do whatever they want with the station
    in the name of "national defense".  A new round of discussions on
    the role of the partner nations was scheduled to begin just a few
    weeks after the walking rectum's letter was (probably deliberately)
    leaked to the media.
    
    It really ticks me off to see the military subverting NASA's funds
    for their own use.  Face it, the shuttle was essentially a military
    toy which the DoD managed to get NASA to fund for them.  Now it
    looks like the DoD is trying to pull the same stunt with the space
    station.
    
    If the DoD is so intent on having their own space station, let them
    damn well pay for their own, and keep their hands off NASA's station.
    I would suggest EVERYONE write their congress-folk and make noise
    that NASA should REMAIN a civilian agency as it was chartered.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
285.1	DEATH STAR	IMNAUT::BIRO		`Thu Apr 23 1987 09:18`	26
	Maybe there is some hope they may be going with the wording favored by NASA and State Dept. allies according to AP artical today this wording would not rule out mil. research, but would describe the station as being "for peaceful purposes consistent with internaiton law". The RA Caspar Weinberger is saying that the US should consider excluding its allies from the space station program if they object having it use for military purposes. "we must be prepared to go forward alone if the price of cooperation is too high" Weinberger wrote sounds like the Return of the Death Star, whos side are we on? I am against a Mil space station, but if there has to be one it should not be the same as the Civilian one, why risk the lifes of allies and our own people. We shoud have learn from the space shuttle about risk management. If Weinberger is willing to push for the $4 billion that our allies are going to invest then he should push for his own 'death star'. The European Space agency could take there money and go with one of the other possible space stations, we are not the only ones who can launch a space station. "SAVE SPACE FOR OUR CHILDREN" JB
285.2		STAR::BANKS	In Search of Mediocrity	`Thu Apr 23 1987 11:32`	25
	While I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a military presence in space is something that we're all going to have to live with sooner or later, the idea of putting that military presence into a NASA space station really torques my bolts. I don't know where the heck they get off calling it a "civilian space agency", when its function turns out to be more of an orbtial arm of SAC and MAC than anything else. If they want a military station, then fine. Take it out of the SDI budget (they seem to have no shortage of bucks lately). At least that way, we know what money is getting spent on military pursuits, and what isn't. The way we have it now, they fund NASA, leaving us to think that we're spending money on civilian space research, while in fact, a (major?) part of this so called civilian money is really just hidden funding for the Pentagon. Sorry. I'm just sort of torqued. Heard some guy on the radio this morning, talking about how great the space station is going to be (I guess they just got their defense bucks to fund it). He was babbling something about the US not taking a back seat to anyone in space research. I thought that we'd already pretty much reserved the back seat for some time to come. Don't mind slogans to whip the public conciousness into support for the space program, but slogans implying that we've already spent enough money wasn't quite what I had in mind.
285.3	check your guns at the door...	BOEHM::DENSMORE	get to the verbs	`Fri Apr 24 1987 08:49`	6
	The last thing I read was that there was a compromise to the effect that military experiments would be allowed but not a military presence. I didn't see any details so I'm not sure what it means or if out potential partners are buying it. Anyone have any more details? Mike
285.4		REGENT::POWERS		`Fri Apr 24 1987 10:27`	16
	I don't CARE whether the space station is civilian or military. As long as it is a Government project, there is no practical difference anyway. If you're at the forefront of technology, or on a new frontier, the govt. is going to have its way in any event. I'd rather have one GOOD $25 billion station than two mediocre, incomplete $15 billion stations. There WILL be a military presence in space. We haven't learned, and are not soon likely to learn, how to get by without cops. Yes, Cap is a bit of a jerk at times, but while he's not too tactful in this instance, he is being expeditious. Why make the militray spend extra money on their own station? It's ALL our money anyway. Take advantage of the willingness of the military to break ground. The spinoffs will come, and we WILL be better for it. - tom]
285.5		JETSAM::ANDRADE	The sentinel (.)(.)	`Fri Apr 24 1987 14:30`	11
	re .4 That is if the military ever releases the technology for civil use. They have this quirk, of labeling everything TOP SECRET. As it is, civil technology would leap 10-15 years ahead if they just released what they got rigth now. I don't think you'd like it. When after SPACE STATION completion, a nice little anoucement is made "Civil control and use CANCELED, due to risks involved in giving civil access to restricted material".