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)