sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (03/09/89)
I found this on sci.physics. It has some relevance to this group so I am posting the relevant parts here. ============================================================================ In article <2028@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes: > > Posted: Fri Mar 3, 1989 4:35 PM EST Msg: EGIJ-3435-7606 > From: RPARK > To: WHATSNEW > > WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 3 March 1989 Washington, DC > > 2. A NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT BUSH > to oversee the implementation of his space policy. In a report > to Congress issued Wednesday, he gave the composition of the 10- > member council. It will be headed by the Vice President and will > include several cabinet officers, the NASA Administrator, the > Director of the CIA, the Director of OMB, the National Security > Advisor and the White House Chief of Staff--but it will not > include the President's Science and Technology Advisor. This > conspicuous omission suggests that the Science Advisor will be as > lightly regarded in this Administration as he was in the last. READ: Boy are we in for it! What does the Director of the CIA have to do with space? Oh, yea... spy satelites. Looks like they have all the spy and defense deptartment bozos on the 'council' and no scientists or space experts. This bodes very badly. Must mean that they are taking SDI seriously, to the exclusion of anything else, like scientific knowledge. There is more to this article, so here it is with no more of my 'pithy' commentary: -jrs > > 3. SALARY IS THE MAIN OBSTACLE IN RECRUITING A SCIENCE ADVISOR, > according to Rep. Ritter (R-PA). This is consistent with rumors > that only corporate executives are on the short lists for both > NASA Administrator and Science Advisor. Clearly, the $71,700 > salary would entail much less of a sacrifice for an academic. > > 4. PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EFFORT were > discussed this week in two days of hearings before the Science, > Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House. Several > witnesses commented on the disproportionate emphasis on Defense > R&D. Bill Brinkman of Bell Labs remarked that although large R&D > expenditures on defense "may create technology spinoff, it also > creates a culture not oriented toward commercial product > realization. Its net contribution to civilian R&D is small." > George Keyworth of the Hudson Institute commented on the relative > value of the SSC and the Space Station, "one of which represents > a national commitment to excellence and leadership in research, > and the other of which is an investment in neither excellent > science nor excellent technology." Rep. David Price (D-NC) > asked which was which. Keyworth responded that the space station > represents nothing new; "it is the past brought forward." > > > Robert L. Park (202) 232-0189 The American Physical Society > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- John Sparks // Amiga | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks \X/ UUCP | >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/11/89)
In article <435@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > > 2. A NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT BUSH > > to oversee the implementation of his space policy. In a report > > to Congress issued Wednesday, he gave the composition of the 10- > > member council. It will be headed by the Vice President and will > > include several cabinet officers, the NASA Administrator, the > > Director of the CIA, the Director of OMB, the National Security > > Advisor and the White House Chief of Staff... > >... What does the Director of the CIA have to do >with space? Oh, yea... spy satelites. Looks like they have all the >spy and defense deptartment bozos on the 'council' and no scientists >or space experts. This bodes very badly. Must mean that they are taking >SDI seriously, to the exclusion of anything else... I think you're over-reacting. The idea is to get all the government agencies with major space interests involved, and the scientists and space experts are all with NASA. With the exception (mentioned in the original piece) of the President's Science Advisor, what other high- level government bureaucrats speak for the constituency you're thinking of? Most government civilian space activity goes through NASA; that may not be a good thing, but it's a fact. Also, in case you haven't noticed, the military space budget has been larger than the civilian space budget since well before SDI. I agree that the proposed NSC lineup does not sound impressive, but for different reasons: it incorporates too many high-level bureaucrats who will be unable to meet frequently, meaning that it will have a hard time getting anything done. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (03/11/89)
In article <1989Mar10.174706.860@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }I agree that the proposed NSC lineup does not sound impressive, but for }different reasons: it incorporates too many high-level bureaucrats who }will be unable to meet frequently, meaning that it will have a hard time }getting anything done. Should we count that as a blessing? -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/15/89)
In article <241920f4@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >}... it incorporates too many high-level bureaucrats who >}will be unable to meet frequently, meaning that it will have a hard time >}getting anything done. > >Should we count that as a blessing? I doubt it. Their underlings will not wait for direction from up above, but will press on regardless. As we've seen in the last few years, that doesn't work too well. Whether it would work better with direction from on high is a good question, but it could hardly be much worse. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu