wbpesch@ihuxp.UUCP (Walt Pesch) (10/31/84)
The following is from the American Space Foundation News, a newsletter
put out by a pro-space group that is for the promotion of the
development of space.
SPACE EMERGES AS ELECTION ISSUE
The issue of the future of America's involvement in space has emerged
as part of the Presidential campaign. President Reagan has maintained
a strong commitment to space - witnessed by his support for the
permanently manned space station - while former Vice President
Mondale, as of press time, was said to be thinking about the issue
(my note: and he is still thinking.)
As stated by Tom Freiling, Director of Campaign for Space, "We
couldn't have come up with a better contrast between a Democrat
candidate who tried to kill the space shuttle ten years ago and a
President who is an absolute space nut." Similar comments were made
by Spacepac's Scott Pace, who said, "As far as we're concerned, Mr.
Mondale's record is atrocious on space issues."
If Mondale runs true to form, we should not expect much in the way of
support for continued American involvement in space. After all, this
is the man who has said, "...the [space] shuttle and station is a
project without justification...and I have attempted to stop this
project for the past two years. Unfortunately, we have not been
successful." And further, "...[the space shuttle] will be one of the
most wasteful, useless projects ever developed by any federal agency;
or for that matter, by anyone else."
The Republican and Democratic platforms also showed radical
differences on the subject of space as the foundation of America's
future. Republicans stated, "We encourage the commercial space
transportation industry. We share President Reagan's vision of the
permanent manned space station within a decade, viewing it as the
first stepping stone toward creating a multibillion dollar private
economy in space."
The Democratic Platform Committee, chaired by Vice Presidential
nominee Ferraro, issued a strong denunciation of the Administration's
Strategic Defense Initiative and a luke-warm reference to civilian
space activities.
ASF Executive Director Fred Whiting testifies before the Democratic
Platform Committee here in Washington, D. C., as well as an ad hoc
group of moderate Republican Senators. Testimony was also submitted
in writing to Republican Platform Committee Chairman Rep. Trent Lott
(R-MS).
---------
A final brief note about the ASF. They are a political action group
interested in promoting the development of space. There is a $15
membership fee, and they publish a newsletter quarterly. Their
address is:
American Space Foundation
214 Massachusettes Avenue, N.E.
Suite 420
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-4474
---------
Walt Pesch
AT&T Technologies
ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpeschmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/01/84)
Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration. Now it's just all become another wing of the Pentagon. The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of military missions. "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on a plaque now.
karn@mouton.UUCP (11/02/84)
Here's one pro-space nut who's voting for Mondale/Ferraro. The manned space station will be of no use if nobody's likely to be around to use it in four years. Reagan's "strong support" for this project is highly suspicious in light of his attitude toward the federal government's role in basic research and science education. No, Reagan supports the space station only because its a stepping stone for him to get his Strategic Defense Initiative. I want to see commercial and scientific space development, including the space station, but I can do without the space program being further raped by the Pentagon. Phil
dls@hocse.UUCP (11/02/84)
CC: skran, ~l5 Reference: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>, <518@tty3b.UUCP> Let's set the record straight about NASA becoming a lackey of the Pentagon. 1)Before the shuttle there were dozens of military launches every year. 2)The shuttle was sold with the idea that it would carry ALL US payloads, and hence reduce costs by re-using the ships a maximum number of times. 3)This has resulted in more public visibility for military operations in space. It is true that the military space budget now exceeds that of NASA. This is due to both growth in military spending and drastic cuts at NASA, for which we can thank Mondale & company. NASA has been STRUGGLING to maintain a civilian space program while faced with a hostile Congress and a growing Pentagon effort. Your attitude is a slap in the face to thousands of dedicated, peace-loving NASA employees and managers. Now, the Pentagon has moved to back-stab NASA by reneging on earlier agreements to fly all military payloads on the shuttle. Instead, they want to build their own unmanned craft. This will drastically increase shuttle costs. To add insult to injury, the Pentagon has consistantly opposed the space station on that grounds that a)it is vulnerable, b)they might have to pay for it, and c)Reagan has promised that it will be international, and hence insecure from their point of view. Essentially the ONLY groups favoring a space station within the government are NASA, the Dept. of Commerce, and President himself. Groups like Campaign for Space and Spacepac are working for a strong civilian space program. I appeal to all of you: Join them in this cause! Don't let the hawks and the beancounters kill the dream! Dale Skran President, North Jersey L5 Society P.O. Box 674 Holmdel, NJ. (to join the L5 local chapter, send your address & 5$ in cash or stamps to the above address; make checks out to the North Jersey L5 Society)
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (11/05/84)
I *know* I'm referencing the wrong article here, but I lost the other and thisa has the same title... As far as NOT supporting the space program because it's become "Another wing of the DoD" -- do you refuse to use the highways because military vehicles do? Dp you oppose MIS computing because the military can use it to create paychecks? ... or not want better train service because military equipment can be shipped on trains? I think there is a little non-objective reasoning here... -- Can you say "classical fallacy?" Good! I *knew* you could. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
fisher@dvinci.DEC (Burns Fisher, MRO3-1/E13, DTN 231-4108) (11/05/84)
<climb up on soapbox>
I could not let the article about Mondale/Reagan on space go by without
replying, even though most readers will get this after the election.
I agree that Reagan is really hot on space, and that Mondale is, at best,
lukewarm. However, I wish to state that in my opinion, a one-issue voter
is being irresponsible. Just as with most decisions we make, we can't get
a perfect candidate. We can't get someone who agrees with us on all our
positions. Space is VERY important to me, but there are a few single
issues which are more important (how about, for example, nuclear war?), and
a number of smaller issues which taken together are more important.
If you believe that the candidates who support space are also the
candidates who best represent the rest of your political ideas, by all
means vote for them. If, however, you believe that space is one of the
few things that you agree with the incumbants on, please weigh carefully
the WHOLE PACKAGE that you get with each pair of candidates before voting.
<step down off soapbox>
Burns
UUCP: ... {decvax|allegra|ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher
ARPA: decwrl!rhea!dvinci!fisher@{Berkeley | SU-Shasta}brahms@spp2.UUCP (11/06/84)
>No, Reagan supports the space station only because its a stepping stone >for him to get his Strategic Defense Initiative. I want to see commercial >and scientific space development, including the space station, but I >can do without the space program being further raped by the Pentagon. If it wasn't for the Pentagon, there would be no space program (civilian), or at least a smaller one than the one that is already to small. I don't like the Pentagon getting into everything either, but I really believe the space program is better of because of them than it would be otherwise. -- Brad brahms usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms arpa: Brahms@usc-eclc [The views expressed above are my own and not those of of my employer.]
mikevp@proper.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (11/08/84)
In article <> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration. Now it's just all become >another wing of the Pentagon. The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of >military missions. "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on >a plaque now. "An awful lot of military missions"? Since when? The shuttle has, so far, launched one (1) secret military satellite. Give us a break!
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (11/09/84)
Hum? Funny, I don't feel like I got slapped. That's okay, it happens
everyday.
Others have given a pretty good defense on space issues. I won't repeat them.
First, NASA is not part, and never was part of the DOD. We are the civlian
space agency, and sometimes we bend over backward to prove it. [I like the
road-defense analogy.] Second, a lot of people formerly with the DOD do
work for NASA, but I can assure you that I would not be working with NASA
if there were not people like Carl Sagan and their ideal.
I have begun working with Tom Ackermann (one of the five authors of the Nuclear
Winter study). NASA potentially gives a lot of hope, and a technological
alternative to working with the DOD. In recent years, our budgets have
been cut heavily. There is also talk of putting NASA and NIH, USGS, NIH,
and other science-oriented offices into a single Cabinent office ala MITI.
This could be bad for NASA (I am uncertain, too many variables).
As for the candidates: I voted for Mondale/Ferraro [grudgingly]. Mondale
could no more abolish NASA that Reagan could disposed of the DOE (although
he came close). I am concerned about the future of the country as well
as the world, but with inflation and the cost of living in Si Valley
going up as well as the budget deficit, I have begun considering taking
a position in Japan [perhaps with MITI, or ICOT, or the Japanese space
agency]. Hell! what's the purpose of idealism anyway?
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPAal@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (11/10/84)
> Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration. Now it's just all become > another wing of the Pentagon. The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of > military missions. "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on > a plaque now. You are badly misinformed. I work on space station in a very minor capacity and have a little better information. DOD opposed space station when Reagan was making up his mind. They will avoid using it because it is to be an international facility with attendant security problems. If you read the space station requirements documents that have come out over the last two years you will see a gradual receeding of the Pentagon as a user until, at present, it has practically disappeared. In the space station request for proposal (the statement of work for the next two years of space station effort in the U.S.) there is, I believe, ONE reference to national security. The reference states that there MAY be national security users but none are presently planned. Also, the space station will probably provide only commercial level encription as a service, not DOD levels. If you go to NASA's space station meetings you will hear little or no discussion of DOD issues anymore, although they were once moderately prominent. This is because DOD is not viewed as a major user of space station, and just as another research outfit when it does use the station. As for shuttle flights, there is to be ONE dedicated DOD flight this year, out of six or eight. That's not and "awful lot" in my vocabulary.