@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC:amon@cmu-ri-fas.arpa (05/08/85)
From: Dale.Amon@CMU-RI-FAS I am not in substantial disagreement with Eugene on the matter of budgets. Neither I nor others have been lobbying for cuts in planetary programs to save the space station. We have been lobbying to keep the budget intact. I would love to see a carrier task force traded away and the resultant funds switched to useful purposes. Early commercialization of the STS might be another way to free up funds for the station. It must also be noted that the space station budget is still not very large, relatively speaking. We could probably pay for it by using the profits of selling hammers, coffee pots and steel washers to the DOD... My ire was directed at those who ARE trying to get other programs cut to save their own piece. I might add that I have been trying to verify the rumor that set off my explosion. I have thus far verified that a group of planetary scientists did indeed approach Sen. Slade Gorton (Majority leader of the Senate Appropriations Committee) requesting such tradeoffs. I have not yet verified whether Carl Sagan was one of them, but I'm working on it. If the planetary scientists are, as a group, attempting to cut other peoples throats, then I have to begin wondering whether we should turn the other cheek. (I am of a basically mellow philosophy: let the other guy take the first swing at you. Then nuke him). I really do doubt that there are a more than a small handful of planetary scientists who are of this low a moral caliber. I find it hard to imagine how anyone could have gotten into planetary science to begin with without having dreamed of GOING themselves. If I should come across the names, I will post them so all will know who they are. A few morons can cause a great deal of harm and generate a great deal of noise. It is hard to be anything BUT explosive when you discover others working at cross purposes for their own selfish ends. I might also make it clear that although I spend a great deal of time trying to defend the space station budget, I have nothing to gain from it but hope for the future. I am not now and have never been employed in any capacity remotely related to NASA or aerospace. (This is not to say I never will, but if I do it will most likely be with an entrepreneurial firm intending to build and/or operate it's own launch vehicles. My reaction to red tape is to tie knots in it and do what I want while someone tries to figure out the snarls, so I'd never make it with any government agency or contractor) I will also add that my earlier post generated a personal mail response to me from Louis Friedman, Executive Director of the Planetary Society. If anyone is interested, I would be more than happy to post his comments. I will state that he denies the Planetary Society has lobbied against the space station. As far as I know at this point, as an organization, this appears to be true. I do not yet know whether the people who run the society are among those who are attacking the station. I will reserve my judgement until I find out for sure, and if they are not, I will be more than happy to apologize to those who happened to be the wrong target.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/12/85)
> ...he denies the Planetary Society has lobbied against the > space station. As far as I know at this point, as an organization, this > appears to be true. I do not yet know whether the people who run the society > are among those who are attacking the station... The Planetary Society is essentially a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carl Sagan. Not literally, but that's the practical result. Checking up on him should suffice. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (05/14/85)
---<<<>>>---
Just want to let off a little steam ............
Why is it everybody's suggestion that we cut the military budget to help
NASA. Military is the only real (consitutional) reason for a
government. Let's cut all non-military budgets, then the private sector
could affort to build these things for profitable reasons. Also, the
use of space for military purposes is one of the prime reasons for
funding NASA in the first place.
Now I've cooled down.
I do support NASA, or more importantly a space program. However my
political idealogy would have the space program in private hands,
except for military advancement.
{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjstd@alice.UUCP (Tom Duff) (05/15/85)
> Path: ..!cbdkc1!tjs ( Tom Stanions @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus) > Military is the only real (consitutional) reason for a > government. So you believe that if someone accuses you of raping his daughter the government shouldn't get involved, since it's not a military matter, only libel (or rape, were the accusation true). I think you should carefully consider any unqualified generalizations that you make, especially in a public forum. I also think you should keep your ill-considered militaristic war-monger's opinions in net.politics and out of nice, clean (albeit sometimes misguided) newsgroups like net.space.
karn@petrus.UUCP (05/15/85)
> I do support NASA, or more importantly a space program. However my > political idealogy would have the space program in private hands, > except for military advancement. I have always been bothered by this kind of dogmatic statement. I have always felt that there are complementary roles for both government and private enterprise in space. An excellent, insightful article by Stephen L. Gillett on this point appears on page 20 of the May 1985 issue of the L-5 News. I defer to it for a far better answer than I could write myself to those who think "free enterprise" by itself will make wondrous and magical things happen in space. Phil
@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC:mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (05/17/85)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> Keep it clean, folks. Name-calling on a public bboard (commie, fascist, pinko, militaristic war-monger) significantly lowers the signal-to-noise ration on the arpanet. If you want to tick somebody off, please do it privately. Thanks.