| From: [email protected] (d.l.skran)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: TIME: Moscow Takes the Lead
Date: 1 Oct 87 14:25:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
I strongly urge that you all read the cover article of the October
5, 1987 issue of TIME, titled "Moscow Takes the Lead."
It is the first large article I've read in a major national media
organ that dares to look honestly at Soviet successes and the decline
of the American space program.
Unlike Martz's unconstructive and anti-space article in NEWSWEEK,
here we have some commentary that while not rabidly pro-space at least
asks most of the correct questions.
I am now hopeful that elements of the major mass media are
starting to wake up to the reality that we have fumbled the ball in a
big way due to our weak and vacillating support of the space program.
To those who doubt the existance of media bias, I can point out
specific articles in TIME that down-played MIR and pooh-poohed the
then L5 Society's contention that the launch of MIR meant the Soviets
were ahead.
Nothing much has changed over the last year except the attitude of
the editorial staff of TIME.
Dale L. Skran Jr.
PS: this article contains facts and interviews available nowhere else.
|
| I agree with the conclusion of the TIME article but the time line
was biased! Several important mission to mars etc were left
out of the American time line and many less important Russian were
put in. I am not sure if this was just an accident or a way to
make the American Space Program look worse then it is, but it was not
needed. I have no dought that the Russian are ahead now, and there
was no need to bias the Time Line. I will have to look at the pictures
on the Time Line again as I did not look closly to see if they matched
the Mission.
john
|
| From: [email protected] (Glenn Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Soviet space marketing moves
Date: 6 Jan 88 15:22:03 GMT
In the area of space marketing the Soviets have just signed a
commercial contract with a West German firm for the production of
several materials in orbit during 1989 to 1992 aboard a Proton
spacecraft. Meanwhile Art Dula, the Texas lawyer who is trying get
permission to launch some communications satellites on Soviet
boosters, has just returned from a tour of the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
While initially doubting how much the Soviets would reveal, he said
"We were surprised they opened up as much as they did", by showing
them a satellite being integrated to a Proton launcher (with its
panels off and wiring harnesses observable). Foreign launches he said
would occur in a separate portion of the space center and he said
"We'll have an American team of 50 people at the Soviet launch complex
doing our satellite processing, checkout, and integration, and our own
security people will be guarding our satellites until the moment of
launch." The opposition by the State Department to the using the
Soviet launch vehicles he felt was based not only on questions of
technological transfer, but also on worries about Soviet boosters
taking flights which would go to US companies. Not only are US
satellite companies losing money from comsats they cannot get into
orbit now, the existence of foreign companies which launch their
systems on cheap Soviet boosters, as well as the modification of the
USSR's Gorizont system to compete directly with western comsats "will
kill the US satellite technology industry. [The Soviets are] clearly
determined to be part of the [space] market".
In the 1970s, the French and Germans wanted to launch a new type
of communications satellite called Symphony. They had built the
satellite and were trying for a launch contract when certain groups in
US industry and government objected to Europe being allowed to send up
such a system (I do not recall the full details but it had something
to do with US vendors not being allowed to send up similar designs at
that time). The Europeans felt that their satellite industry could
not be held hostage to a determination of what was allowed by various
groups in this country, especially when they were competing for comsat
contracts with US industry. Hence they started the Ariane projects,
producing a launcher which even before the Space Shuttle accident was
capturing 50% of the world's space commercial booster contracts. One
point to note that if it was not for Ariane, a fifth shuttle orbiter
at least would have justified just on the basis of demand. Are we
seeing the same thing with respect to Soviet launch vehicles? Will
the mercantile forces in industry within this country again try to
keep everything for themselves, and result in losing world market
shares elsewhere? To Third World nations what does it matter whether
they buy US, European, Japanese, Chinese or Soviet equipment - only
price, service, and quality are of concern. At least in launch systems
the Soviets meet all those requirements. It reminds me of the old
stock market saying - "A Bull can make money part of the time, a Bear
can make money part of the time, but a Hog always looses".
Glenn Chapman
MIT Lincoln Lab
|