Conference 7.286::space

    I attended a meeting tonight in Nashua, NH at which Al Gore was
    the speaker.  I had the opportunity to ask him the following question:
    
    "Sen. Gore, where do you see the American space program 20 years
    from now and also 40 years from now?"
    
    Sen. Gore responded by stating that he was going to make a major
    speech tomorrow on the space program and what he believes the US
    should do to get back on track.  Because of this and not to divulge
    any advance notice of the contents of that speech he would just
    touch upon the subject briefly.  He stated that America's space
    program has been like a ship without a rudder since the Appollo
    program ended.  He stated that what was need was a clear statement
    of long term goals with a particular eye on the studies that have
    been done since the Challenger disaster.  He speciffically stated
    the Sally Ride report.  He mentioned a clear long term goal of a
    mission to Mars and it's moon Phoboes for scientific study.
    
    Look for more in the paper tomorrow night and in days to come.
    
    I am glad that someone seems to be making this an issue.
    
    Rich 

    	See SPACE Topic 306.
    
    	Larry
    

    Re: -1
    
    Yes see 306 but I believe that 306 is "Democratic Space Platform"
    and I think a topic dealing with how each Presidential Candidate
    feels, as opposed to the party platform (which may, no probably
    is different) is justified.  
    
    Now to the topic.  Today on Meet the Press, Dukakis came out 
    against the aerospace plane.  He called it something like a $3 
    billion program to get investment bankers from New York to Tokyo
    in three hours.  Frankly I think that is very simple-minded.  I
    thought "the Duke" was for technology?
    
    Tony
    

	From the Boston Globe, 2-Feb-88:

	GOP hopefuls skip space plan hearing
	
	Durham, NH -- None of the Republican presidential candidates
	showed up to describe their proposals for the nation's space
	program at a congressional hearing in Durham yesterday,
	prompting Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla) to decry the "frustrating"
	failure of the candidates to articulate a space policy.

	By failing to appear, the candidates were "undermining what the
	people want," said Nelson, the chairman of the House sub-
	committee on Space Science and Applications, which had invited
	the GOP and Democratic candidates to appear at two separate
	hearings.  Nelson, citing polls that show a high level of
	public support for the space program, added, "The space program
	needs goals established by a leader, and it needs to be led by
	the president."

	Alexander Haig had tentatively accepted the invitation, but
	withdrew at the last moment.  The subcommittee instead heard
	testimony from scientists about the importance of maintaining
	and expanding NASA's scientific programs.

	A second hearing, to which all the Democratic candidates have
	been invited, is set for Friday in Iowa.  Four of the candidates
	have tentaively accepted.

    	Get the US space program out of the hands of the government
    and into free enterprise NOW!  The very actions of these candidates
    (especially the Republicans!) proves that they do not know and do
    not care about our future in space.  Absolutely sickening!
    
    	Larry
    

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Libertarian candidate space position papers
Date: 21 Mar 88 20:13:00 GMT
 
    The following two positions papers are the statements of the
Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul on domestic and
international space issues. For more information on their stands: 
 
	Ron Paul for President Committee
	1120 NASA Road, Suite 104, Houston TX 77058
  
==============================================================================
			SPACE - DOMESTIC POLICY
 
    Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense
then discarded them:  A space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a
heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear
engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well
tested Earth-Moon transport. 
 
    The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the
saddest examples of this folly.  Production was intentionally halted
and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured
support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. 
Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as
much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress,
government style. 
 
    Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses
to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately
need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from
using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which
unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton. 
 
    NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development,
twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent
that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm
could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better. 
 
    Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking
their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the
government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as
soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the
military, and thre rest of NASA should be sold to private operators.
The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government 
roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed. 
 
    It is not the business of the defense department of a free society
to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The
interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that
will put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live
television coverage.  Maybe, besides competition, that's what our
government is afraid of. 
 
    There is really only one proper role for the military in space or
on Earth:  The protection of America. Otherwise, the new fronteir of
Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge
and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on Earth.  We
should not let government get in their way. 
 
==============================================================================
		SPACE - INTERNATIONAL POLICY
 
    Our government is not only shortsighted in it's negotiations on
space issues, it's downright anti-American. Sometimes it's hard to
decide whose principles the State Department is defending. They
certainly aren't those of our Founding Fathers. 
 
    About the only anti-property treaty this country hasn't ratified
is the odious "Moon Treaty", written by our own State Department. If
not for an alert group of citizens (L5 Society), the United States
would have ratified this treaty under President Carter and embraced
control of all the rest of creation by a World Government.  Under "the
common heritage of all mankind" space would be the heritage of no one.
The vast wealth of resources and energy in our solar system would
remain untapped instead of being explored by entrepreneurs who would
improve the condition of all humanity.  It's time this sick treaty is
repudiated once and for all. 
 
    We must also demand a revision or understanding to the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty so individual property rights are recognized.  If there
are no implimenting protocols for property rights within a specified
time limit we should withdraw from the treaty entirely.  In any case,
we should immediately open a land office and accept claims of Americans 
to specific pieces of land, subject to occupancy within 15 years. 
 
    Back in the late 1950s a project called Orion seriously considered
using small nuclear explosions to power a spacecraft. The lifting
capacity would have been vast, measured in thousands of tons instead
of the miniscule abilities of today's mightiest rockets. This
brute-force approach was simple enough to be considered feasible 30
years ago.  Unfortunately, the idea was shelved by the 1963 Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty. 
 
    If we truly wish to see the opening of the space frontier, we must
not prevent businesses from working on futuristic ideas like fusion
drives or matter-antimatter engines. Such technologies will one day
open the solar system to commerce the way the clipper ship opened the
oceans in the 19th century. 
 
    A time may also come when industrial nuclear explosives are needed
in deep space for extraction of the vast wealth of resources inside
comets and asteroids.  Modification of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty and
other understandings to clearly allow such non-military use of nuclear
technology is in the best interests of all space-faring peoples. 
 
    But perhaps most basic of all, we should question why governments
of 20th century Earth assume they have the right to make laws for
unknown environments, at distances of millions of miles and a time
decades or centuries in the future. If the arm of government can reach
that far, freedom on Earth is precarious at best. 

    The October 88 edition of Space World magazine from the National
    Space Society has an interesting article about space politics.
    I'll type it in here for all of you non-members to read.  If you're
    really interested in space exploration, you really should think
    about joining the NSS.  It features a great magazine, and the $30.00
    a year dues is tax deductable.
    
    Title:  Bush Vs. Dukakis: How They Stand On Space Policy
    
    NSS magazine, Oct '88  Pg. 21
    
                             Bush
    
    Supports: Continued development of the Space Station.
    Supports: Mission to Earth goal of the Ride Report.
    Supports: Construction of a replacement Shuttle orbiter,
    development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and creation of an
    expendable launch vehicle fleet run by private industry.
    Supports: Development of Transatmospheric Vehicle.
    Supports: Unmanned probes to the Moon, Mars and the outer planets.
    Supports: Reestablishment of the National Aeronautics and Space
    council.
    
                             Dukakis
    
    Supports: Continued development of the Space Station.
    Supports: Construction of a replacement Shuttle orbiter and development
    of a diversified launch vehicle fleet.
    Supports: New management for NASA.
    Supports: Stable space science funding to support Magellan, Mars
    Observer, Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) and the Hubble
    Space Telescope.
    Supports: International cooperation in space with the Soviets and
    other spacefaring nations.
    Supports: Reestablishment of the National Aeronautics and Space
    Council.
    Opposes: Development of X-30 Transatmospheric Vehicle (National
    Aerospace Plane).
    
    
    The article also mentioned that due to the efforts of space advocates
    across the nation, Dukakus was told that he could not carry key
    states like Alabama, Texas, Ohio and California without paying
    more attention to space.  Shortly thereafter, the Dukakus campaign
    responded with a new, more detailed position on space, including
    explicit backing for a permanently manned Space Station.
    
    Lets hear it for the space radicals...   Ron

    
    Congratulations to the "Space Radicals" who got our presidential
    candidates interested in space.  It's a shame John Glenn didn't
    run for president this year.
    
    						-SK
    

Re .7

I think Dukakis has again changed his position to support the X-30 TAV.  
At least I heard a discussion where it was said that Dukakis opposed 
(list of 3 including TAV) and has now changed mind to some extent on all 
three.

Tony

    Of the two candidates, which is more likely to "put his money
    where his mouth is"?  I'm edging towards Dukakis on other issues,
    but will he really uphold his promises?
    
    				Steve

    Of the two, I think Dukakis is the better bet to improve funding for
    the space program.  My impresion is that the Duke is not  excited by
    science for it's own sake or the romance of exploration, (he pulled a
    'D' in physics at Swarthmore which decided him on a career in
    politics), but that he will listen to a case presented on it's merits. 
    
    I think that Bush is even less excited by science and exploration than
    Dukakis and unless a program can show benefits as a weapon system, or
    in real short term national prestige points, it won't get much
    attention.  In short a continuation of the Reagan policy. 
    
    Consider that if Dukakis cuts back on SDI and some of the redundant
    military projects there will be more funds available to compete
    for.  I think you can beleive Bush when he says he won't cut defense.
    
    One other point, I think Dukakis would be much more likely to support
    joint space projects with other nations than Bush and there seems
    to be opportunities opening up in this space.
    
    Not a great choice, neither candidate impresses me as putting space
    science and exploration high on his list of priorities, it's just
    that I think there is a much better chance of being heard in a Dukakis
    administration.
    
    Mike Hughes
    

    re .7
    
    The shuttle was saved from demise for the very same reasons.  Richard
    NIxon would have had trouble from Texas, Florida, California if
    the aerospace industry had been totally devastated by the winding
    down of both the space program and the Vietnam War.  I think the
    candidates today merely reflect our culture of short term goals
    and vision.  "Just think, Mr/Ms Voter, in only 10 years we will
    be able to get benefit X..." or "We will understand our own planet
    better and thus have a better chance at dealing with pollution,
    climate,...."  It just don't fit in a 15 sec sound bite.  :-(
    
    					Mike

	Whatever Dukakis positions were on Space, he could
	never carry Alabama, Florida or Texas.

	Remember Huntsville, Alabama community honored Werner Von Braun
	even after accounts of his dark past as a high ranking Nazi Officer 
	came to light. Dukakis does not have what it takes to appeal to
	such a community.

	Darryl

    	Next week's NOVA program on PBS-TV deals with how the Presidential
    candidates for 1988 will affect the U.S. space program and America's
    future in the process.  It should be interesting.
    
    	Tonight is the televised debate between Vice Presidential
    candidates Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle.  Bentsen is a proven true
    supporter of the space program, but I personally have little faith
    at this time in either Presidential candidate helping our future
    in space.  With the flight of DISCOVERY having finished so recently,
    the space program will probably be one of the issues discussed tonight.
    
    	Larry
    

    I hope we don't get into a rathole here but I am not impressed by
    George Bush's commitments either.  He made a point of making a
    "non-political" appearance at Discovery's landing but did not attend
    or make plans to attend the other 25 landings he was invited to
    attend.  Given his stated goals around taxes, the military budget
    and the deficit, I don't expect him to have any flexiblity around
    increasing or even maintaining NASA's budget.  Mike Dukakis is
    admittedly an unknown quantity here since he has no track record
    on the space program.  It would seem that the space program would
    fit nicely into his stated goals of making the US more competitive
    economically (at least someone could argue that point with him).
    
    The real question, I guess, would be which guy, if either, has any
    real commitment AND could either translate that commitment into
    funding and programs given Congressional reluctance to support space?
    
    						Mike

    I think the real problem will be the fact that there will
    not be enought money next year to incress NASA budget without
    going over budget, (funds allready commited) This would trigger
    an automatic reduction of all funds already commited.  I dont
    think either canidate will do this. VP Bush seems to have 
    not change on his views while Gov. Duke has change his
    views several times but both will have to stay within
    the budget or take something back form someone else.
    jb
    

    Having been wrong about thinking the shuttle wouldn't launch until
    after the upcoming election, I hope I'm also wrong about the following,
    but:
    
    I don't think you can count on either candidate, still.
    
    George Bush seems to be treating our space program as one big photo
    opportunity.  I'm surprised he didn't hand the astronauts some "Elect
    Bush" pamphlets as they walked off the shuttle.  Beyond that, he
    still seems to be making noises that a space program is just an
    expensive way to get SDI into orbit.
    
    Mike Dukakis, on the other hand, presents us with a rapidly moving
    target.  Just a few months ago, he was down on just about every
    aspect of having a space program.  Now, he's NASA's best friend
    (or at least moving in that direction).  I suspect this is strongly
    related to the amount of pressure his VP candidate is putting on him,
    and the only reason he's caving in is to get the votes.  Unfortunately,
    I suspect his tune will change back to anti-space after the election
    just as quickly as it's been moving towards pro-space in the last
    few weeks.  I don't see any conviction here other than the desire
    to get elected by saying whatever it takes.
    
    Neither candidate would support space exploration like Kennedy or
    Johnson did, and without that presidential support, congress will
    continue to view the space budget as the #1 place to cut budgets.
    The way things have been going recently, I think the only reason
    why anyone in office right now would want a bigger space budget
    would be to have more budget to cut.
    
    I'd suspect that if anyone wants to work on a thriving space program
    in the next few years, their best course would be to brush up on
    their foreign language skills (Russian, French, Chinese, Japanese,
    ...).

    I read in today's editorial column that muck has been raised on
    Benton to the tune of a million or more in missappropriated money
    in a land usage fraud.  Johnson interviened to prevent his case
    from being prosecuted due to heavy problems with the ESTES case
    and Johnson's re-election effort.  If this is true, and the republicans
    hit the bribe and fraud trail that has derailed so many campaigns,
    itlooks as if the "Duke will dance to his demise" at Bushes inaugural
    ball.
    
    Les
    

    	Who is Benton?
    
    	Larry
    

    Democratic VP candidate L Bentsen.  Sorry for the miss-spelling.
    The dates for the Johnson intervention was 1967, and the deal had
    its underpinnings in the late fifty's.
    
    Les
    

    After the shuttle landing, Bush said that he was making a commitment to
    get a space station in orbit by 1996 if he is elected.  He didn't say
    what kind of station though.

    ---Phil

    The only thing that I notice is that Bush, while not being the "John
    F. Kennedy" of the space program does have one major step above the
    Duke, and that is consistancy.
    
    We may not like everything that we hear from Bush, but at least
    he isn't flip-flopping on all the issues.  He is maintaing his stance
    even when that stance may hurt him with this group or that.  I get
    the feeling that we are hearing his true position (for the most
    part).  As for the Duke, he will change his tune depending on who
    he is talking to and what the current public opinion is in order
    to win votes.  The Duke reminds me of Major Frank Burns form M*A*S*H,
    He'll change his mind in a minute if the most powerfull person(s)
    in the audiance disagree.
    
    My opinion.
    jim
    

	re: 20

	Bentson corrupt! Noooo! 
	He was picked to appeal to Reagan constituency so what 
	do you expect. It will be truly ironic and funny to have 
	the "anti-liberals" point this as a Dukakis "sleeze factor". 
	Poor Dukeee Wookie. 


	I wouldn't idolize Bentson so much or even Congress people. 
	They receive bribes er uh I mean campaign contributions well
	ok legal bribes from many companies. Show me the candidates
	who get PAC money etc from aerospace corporations or
	whose district or state benefits from space contracts and
	I show you ...
	

	[Dukakis was more ... anti-space but now more pro-space]

	Don't you mean "'anti-defense' but now ..."

	[Support space program like Kennedy and Johnson]

	It won't happen for a long time even if we put NASA
	in charge. You are talking about expenditures of 
	over 100 billion dollars. The Soviet Union might
	be very active in space but it is costing them a lot.
	I guess if we can get the Japanese to foot the bill,
	it would then be feasible ... hey a joint venture.
	You will see activity but comparing it to the 60's
	is not realistic.

	Darryl

    It's often difficult to tell what they mean anyway.  Jerry Pournelle is
    trying to convince people on BIX that Reagan was very pro-space, and
    that his Star Wars program was supposed to lead to a 'real' space
    program. HA!
    
    Willie
    

    Next week's NOVA program (Tuesday night on Channel 2 in Boston)
    is about the election and the space program.  The Duke will be
    appearing as himself and George Bush's science advisor will be
    appearing as George.  Check you local listings for the PBS station
    nearest you.
    
    						Mike

    	I could have sworn I said that in 392.14...
    
    	:^)
    

    re .26
    
    Oh yeah.  I thought it sounded familiar when I heard it on TV :-)
    
    						Mike

Hi Guys (and gals!),

I've been following your conference in readonly for awhile now (nuth'n worth
postin), and like the information and exchange of ideas goin' round. But that'
not why i'm posting...

Someone just told me that Dukee Wookee (tm? ;^) is planning to make an
appearance tomorrow, over at the Space Station Mock-up Facility, here at 
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Center in Huntington Beach, Calif. 
[I'm a permanent residenet out here]

I really thing this is great timing.  I'll be sure to watch NOVA tonite and
take notes on his position, and attended his "hot air" session tomorrow... 
I think he's really gonna have a hard time convincing anyone out here of his
policies...this part of Orange County is VERY CONSERVATIVE (the liberals live
up in L.A./Hollywood), and is mostly GOP!

This should be kinda fun, i'll report back after i've attended the "Punch and
Judy Show" and give you my synopsis [you probably wouldn't like my reaction] B^)

Jim (Jp)

    	If anyone watched NOVA last night, did you get a sick feeling
    in your stomach like I did, especially when Bush said he'd pass
    on a lot of our future space exploration plans to our NEXT President!
    
    	Either way, I think the U.S. space program is in deep doo-doo;
    Both candidates talked a lot, but said little. 
    
    	Well, dosbedanya everybody!
    
    	(no smiley)
    

    I also got that sick feeling last night watching NOVA.  George said
    he'd make up his mind on expanding our space policy after a careful
    study of the situation.  Who needs to study the situation?  I've
    been following the space program all my life!  I could tell you
    in a minute what my plans would be.  Why can't George?
    
    The Duke, when talking about the space station mentioned his favorite
    line again, "but of course we're going to have to consider the
    defficit".  I think he'll agree to anything right now, to get a few
    votes.
    
    Moon Base, or Mars mission, what's it gonna be?  It's that simple.
    OK, so the country's in debt.  We still need long range goals.
    I do believe in the "Mission Earth" program, but I think this is
    an ongoing thing that should be done in conjunction with any other
    program we deciede to follow.
    
    My opinion: Moon Base
    Reason:     "It's the logical thing" - Spock
    
    Gee, that was fun...	Ron