[net.columbia] Response from Representative Dwyer

ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (03/28/86)

I wrote a letter to my Congresspersons (see letter at end of article).  The
reply I got from Representative Dwyer may be of interest:

>   "Thank you for contacting me concerning the future of manned space
>   flights in light of the terrible tragedy of the Challenger space
>   shuttle and its crew.
>   
>   The consensus of opinions voiced so far is similar to yours and
>   supportive of the continuation of manned space flights.  Obviously,
>   it will be some months before any further shuttle flights will be
>   scheduled due to the investigation into the Challenger's accident.
>   
>   As a member of the Space Caucus, I, too, feel that the space program
>   has been of enormous benefit to mankind in many varied ways.  I
>   appreciate having your comments on this important issue and will
>   keep your views in mind during the coming months as the
>   investigation into NASA's future continues.  I hope that you will
>   continue to advise me of your feelings on matters of mutual concern
>   and will contact me whenever I can be of service."

(This is the letter I sent to Dwyer and Senator Bradley (if it looks familiar,
it's because pieces were shamelessly stolen from net.space):

       I want to urge your support for the continuation	of the
       manned space program (and the manned space station) with	a
       full and	adequate level of funding.  This includes the
       building	of at least two	more orbiters, one to replace
       Challenger, and the other to serve as the fifth orbiter that
       should have been	built before.

       The questions may arise:	do we need a shuttle-like vehicle,
       and does	it need	to be manned?  The answer to the first is
       unequivocally yes; it is	the only way we	have of	getting
       large arbitrary objects in and out of orbit, and	it is the
       only way	we will	have for quite some years.  I think that
       the answer to the second	is also	yes, and I will	try to
       summarize why.  First, a	vehicle	like the shuttle is
       basically a space station which we do not need to maintain
       in space	for long periods, and which also provides launching
       and retrieval to	earth.	In this	capacity it is useful to
       take humans if only because they	can do space station
       activities while	the vehicle does whatever else it needs	to
       do--that	is the rationale behind	Spacelab.  Second, we do
       not have	teleoperators that can perform anything	other than
       moving objects from one location	to another.  There is no
       machine that can	disassemble an automobile engine (or any
       other engine), and there	won't be one for a while.  That
       means that if we	want to	do repairs and the like	in orbit,
       we have to take people with us for the present.	Forgoing
       this means forgetting things like the Hubble telescope, and
       why build expendable observatories when they can	be repaired
       and modified to last for	many years?

       We should begin designing the next vehicle.  And	we should
       continue	to use the one we have now, with people	aboard.

)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
					(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)