wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (03/06/84)
SPACE STATION ALERT!!! To all U.S. taxpayers: There is a significant effort in the House Space Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%. A strong showing of public opposition to a space station is critical now, just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150 million. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP STOP THIS WASTE OF MONEY: 1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you oppose any funding for a space station or increased funding for NASA: Congressman Harold Volkmer Congressman Don Fuqua 1230 Longworth House Office Bldg 2269 Rayburn House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2956 (202) 225-5235 Although the subcommittee vote is scheduled for March 13, a decision will probably be made a week before that date. Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ (Posted in response to an opposing viewpoint on net.space. Flames to /dev/null.)
dls@hocse.UUCP (03/07/84)
Cute. Why don't you contribute some substantial criticism of the space station as a probject. I'm sure we'd all be interested and the net would be more interesting as a result. If we(space station advocates) can't convince a person such as yourself that a space station is 1)the essential next step in space 2)extremely important to the human future 3)likly to produce significant economic return 4)well worth a billion a year for ten years then maybe we shouldn't have one. But give us a chance to make our case. Dale.
whp@cbnap.UUCP (03/07/84)
FLAME ON: Your whole article seems to be a flame; why didn't you post it in net.flame to begin with? Or in net.politics? Or just in net.taxes? I would guess most of the readers of net.space apprieciated the original information and support tax money investment into space. FLAME OFF. W. H. Pollock
clyde@ut-ngp.UUCP (03/08/84)
<<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>> > To all U.S. taxpayers: There is a significant effort in the House Space > Science Subcommittee to cut funding for a space station by 50%. A > strong showing of public opposition to a space station is critical now, > just before Congress takes its first vote on the issue. The Administration > request for Fiscal 1985 space station definition studies is $150 > million. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP STOP THIS WASTE OF MONEY: > 1. IMMEDIATELY CALL OR SEND A MAILGRAM to the following two > Congressmen, stating briefly in your own words that you oppose any > funding for a space station or increased funding for NASA: > (Posted in response to an opposing viewpoint on net.space. > Flames to /dev/null.) ***** No such luck, sucker! If this trash was supposed to be in sarcastic mode, you failed miserably. If this piece was SERIOUS, you are in even a deeper ditch. 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) "The ennui is overpowering" - Marvin clyde@ut-ngp.{UUCP,ARPA} clyde@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA} ihnp4!ut-ngp!clyde
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/09/84)
Well, I have to admit. I misread the "Space Station Alert". I sent off letters supporting the space platform, and didn't even realize that the silly note wanted people to espouse ignorance and descent into savagry instead of advancement of the race. Oh well, even from evil may come a bit of good, I guess, I wonder how many other people were prompted to support the space station as a result of that article? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
jrf@hp-pcd.UUCP (03/10/84)
I would think $150 million well spent for the accumulation of knowledge; while billions are wasted on weapons. Let's do without just *one* missle so that we may learn more about the universe. Thanks for posting the telephone numbers. It should encourage motivated individuals to call and voice their opinion. Personally, I shall let them know how important knowledge of space is to many *taxpayers*.
dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes) (03/12/84)
Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world 2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-)) 3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?) since no-one will be able to tell the difference. But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending that much money. Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space? Yours sadly, Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/14/84)
Dave Lukes observes, in part:
But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
that much money.
Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space?
Why not do both? They are in no way mutually exclusive. The money
being spent on space is a drop in the bucket compared to what's already
being spent on the problems of Earth; neither eliminating the space
effort entirely nor beefing it up considerably will have any noticeable
financial effect.
King Ferdinand of Spain (Queen Isabella's husband) had a lot of problems.
Nobody remembers them today. We do remember something else.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (03/18/84)
This is unfortunate enough to deserve yet another response:
From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station:
1) feed a few of the starving people in the world
The money would not go to feed starving people, it would go for arms.
Even if it would go to feeding people, remember that NASA's budget
has never amounted to a sizeable fraction of the existing social programs.
You don't eat your seed corn, not if you want there to be food later.
The space station is a large step towards the eventual industrialization
and settlement of space, possibly involving the use of solar power satellites
to supplant terrestial sources of power such as fossil fuels, the moving
of much ground-based and polluting industry into space, and access to
very large amounts of resources that are in short supply down here.
Not to mention the immediate development of production of pharmaceuticals
and other products that cannot be produced in quantity (or at all) here.
Any of these things will benefit the starving people of the world.
2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-))
The main reason Margaret Mead, for instance, was interested in the
settlement of space is that it would give a real chance for the study
of many medium to large scale societies in various stages of isolation
from each other: something no longer possible on this planet.
This would, one would think, have a beneficial effect on the various
social sciences, and might perhaps lead to better political systems.
Considering the way politicians are leading us, societies off this
planet may well be the only ones to survive.
3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie
Capricorn One?) since no-one will be able to tell the difference.
As Hans.Moravec%cmu-ri-rover@sri-unix.UUCP pointed out:
One of the most potentially lucrative markets in space is the
manufacture of drugs that are expensive to make on Earth, but easy and
cheap to manufacture in zero gravity. Industry projections show that
space-made pharmaceutical products could generate annual sales of $20
billion by the 1990s.
Two of the first drugs that will be produced in zero gravity in mass
quantities are beta cells, expected to be a single-injection cure for
diabetes; and interferon, used for treating viral infections, cancer
and sexually transmitted Type II herpes.
While he was referring to private space vehicles, the space station would
be an excellent platform for developing just such pharmeceuticals. One
would think a number of diabetics and cancer and herpes victims would
notice the difference.
again From: dave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes)
But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending
that much money.
Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones
in space?
How about finding about what the space station is for before claiming it
will cause more problems than it will help solve? You give no real arguments
against a space station; you just assert it's bad. Why?
Yours sadly,
Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!ukc!qtlon!dave)
It's somewhat droll that, being in the U.K., you don't even have to pay for it.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqal@ames-lm.UUCP (03/20/84)
In response the the following (edited): Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before making new ones in space? The federal government of the U.S. spends approximately $300-400 billion a year on human services of one sort or another. NASA's budget is approximately $7.7 billion, of which $150 million is earmarked for space station in fiscal 85. I.e., the government spends 50 times as much on trying to solve Earth problems as on NASA as a whole, and about three orders of magnitude more than on the space station. I believe that this is a fairly reasonable ratio, especially considering that NASA's programs have had a large positive effect on the lives of millions of people (communication satellites, pacemakers, computer chips, solar cells, etc.). Communication and weather satellites are particularly effective in aiding the peasants of the world with weather forcasts and communication where no lines have been layed. That's one reason why India and Indonesia have recently put up such satellites. You might be interested to know that NASA's goal is to have a budget equal to 1% of total federal outlay. The present sum is less. This is not an excessive sum to spend on the future. Lastly, reputable economic analysis suggests that each dollar spent on the space program generates $7 - 14 of economic activity. Since the feds take about 25% of every dollar in taxes, each dollar spent on NASA generates $1.75 - 3.50 in tax revenue over the next few years. Think about it.
richard@sequent.UUCP (03/20/84)
>> Suggested alternatives to wasting money on a space station: >> >> 1) feed a few of the starving people in the world >> >> 2) Give all politicians a lobotomy (semi :-)) >> >> 3) Build a mock up space station (did you see the movie Capricorn One?) >> since no-one will be able to tell the difference. >> >> But seriously, folks, there ARE a lot more useful ways of spending >> that much money. Earth has enough problems: why not solve them before >> making new ones in space? You're missing several points Dave. The problem with your suggestions one and two is that it's only a temporary fix. In another generation, you'll have an even larger host of hungry to feed, with less earthly resources to do so. And any intelligent person knows that there would be no noticable differance in the behavior of most politicians after a lobotomy, or even total brain death, for that matter. :-) No real reply is necessary for point three. The important thing is: The money spent in space is an *investment* that may someday solve alot of the worlds problems. Aren't you aware that research in "closed-loop" systems might provide the knowledge needed to feed those billions you worry so much about? And perhaps the psychological research necessary to allow humans to live in such circumstances might someday obviate the world's need for politicians in the first place (not to mention psychiatrists and lawyers - what more could you ask?) Considering the amount wasted each year (trillion dollar defense budgets?) eight billion over a decade is a tiny amount, considering what it will someday buy. Some other ideas: Materials research that can only be done in space might discover a new photovoltaic technique that stops the world's dependency on oil reserves - something that will assuredly lead to war if left alone. Drug research taking advantage of micro-gravity might cure cancer, provide better birth-control drugs, or even teach us how to enable crops to fix nitrogen from the air, as opposed to fertilizers. International competition in space between the superpowers might reduce the competition on the ground. Orbital analysis of the earth might help us understand the ecology of spaceship earth - combine that with the "closed system" research, and you might get some interesting new data on what we're doing to our nest. Sit back and think a few minutes, or listen (with an *open* mind) to some of the pro-space people, and you'll hear so many ideas it'll make your head spin. Feeding the poor without attempting to solve the *problem* of hunger is treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease. The patient will eventually die. ___________________________________________________________________________ The preceding should not to be construed as the statement or opinion of the employers or associates of the author. It is solely the belief... from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard