Dale.Amon%CMU-RI-FAS@sri-unix.UUCP (05/07/84)
(This is the text in full of a press release issued by Congressman Bill
Green, R-NY)
CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED MANNED SPACE STATION
Congressman Bill Green (R-NY) today said American space
scientists were concerned about the Administration's proposed manned
space station and he said that Congress should not allow NASA to
"lock us into a purely manned system."
Green said he and many scientists that he surveyed were
concerned because of the high costs of a manned space station could
"put the sqeeze on other vital scientific programs."
Green is ranking minority member of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on HUD and Independent Agencies and which is to vote on
NASA appropriations in the near future. NASA is requesting $150
million in planning money for a manned station. Green said he is
considering requiring NASA to "take a two track approach" that would
include unmanned space platforms that would not depend upon a manned
station.
"A two-track system might be best," Green said, "as any cost
overruns in the manned system would be somewhat less likely to take
funds from an independent unmanned program. Furthermore. NASA's
ability to fund the manned station without cutting other programs
depends upon its receiving a 1% real increase in each year's budget.
But the promise of that 1% from the Office of Management and Budget
cannot be guaranteed given economic and political uncertainties in
the future."
Green said many scientists were concerned that cost overruns
in the space station would jeopardize other programs, and noted that
this happened when the Shuttle program jumped about 3% (to $8.8
billion from the original projected cost of $6.5 billion).
"While a manned space station has some advantages, including
human drama," Green said, "most scientists surveyed tell us they do
not need a space station for their projects. Even among those who
would welcome ar accept a station, more would prefer an unmanned
station."
At a press conference in Washington, Green released the results
of a survey of members of the space science community that he had
conducted. More than 75 percent of the respondents said their work
did not require a space station. Forty-seven percent said they
would support a space station even if it had no immediate scientific
value, as it may have engineering, social or political value.
Within this group, there was slightly more support for an unmanned
station.
Green noted that in testimony before his Subcommittee, Dr.
George Keyworth, the President's chief scientific advisor, conceded
that a manned station (with a projected cost of $8 billion) would be
more expensive and that costs per experiment in space run five times
more when done on a manned vehicle.
"What we have to consider is mot only what we would _like to
do_ but what we reasonably can _afford_ to do," Green said. "And
while a manned space station may be desirable as a step in man's
exploration of the stars, we should not permit one program to
jeopardize other less dramatic but valuable scientific
exploration."
contact: Hank Roden
212-826-4466/202-225-2436
Release: April 30, 1983
________________________________________________________________________
There will be furthur word on 'Scientists for a Manned Space Station'.
Stay tuned to this channel for new bullitens, as the story is breaking...
amon@cmu-ri-fas.arpaels@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (05/26/84)
Such blinding logic!! I suppose that since most people don't need airplanes for their work, funding for air traffic control should be changed! I wonder just who he asked about the space station?? Certainly noone who wants to do REAL space science! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | "Things always look | A message from the mental maze that darkest just before | calls itself: they go totally black!!" | | -- Col. Hannibal Smith | ERIC STROBEL | --------------------------------| UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harpo,allegra,inuxc,seismo,teklabs}!pur-ee!Physics:els INTERNET: els @ pur-phy.UUCP