crc@clyde.UUCP (08/04/83)
The ussr has a space station. At this moment it is in orbit and operation and there is a crew on it. They have had a series of these for several years.
ks@astrovax.UUCP (11/17/83)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 15
In an interview with WPRB radio station here, representative Don Fuqua
(chairman of the House committee on Science & Technology, which oversees
space programs) has said that "reliable information" he has indicates
that the president is planning "to include funding for, and a commitment
to" a permantently manned space station in low Earth orbit in the fiscal
1985 budget. The figure he quoted was $200 million for the initial year,
going up in successive years.
NASA administrator Dr. James Beggs, who we interviewed for the same
radio program, was not as definite about this. Fuqua did not give a
date for when this decision would be announced. Fuqua made his statement
just over two weeks ago.
Karl Stapelfeldt
Frank Lemoine
WPRB news & Princeton SEDSHans.Moravec%CMU-RI-ROVER@sri-unix.UUCP (01/19/84)
n507 2252 18 Jan 84
BC-SPACE-01-19
By Albert Sehlstedt Jr.
(c) 1984 The Baltimore Sun (Independent Press Service)
WASHINGTON - President Reagan will propose next week that the nation
build a permanent manned space station, and there will be some money
for the project in his 1985 budget, a senior administration official
said Wednesday.
''NASA made a good presentation'' to the White House in behalf of
the space station, the official said, referring to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. ''It seemed the next logical
step.''
Reagan will make his proposal during his State of the Union Address
to Congress next Wednesday, the official said.
NASA has long sought such a large station in Earth orbit that would
contain long-term living quarters for astronauts, serve as a
laboratory for scientific studies and possibly be used as a
jumping-off point for expeditions to the moon and planets.
The cost of a space station in its initial form has been estimated
at $7.5 billion to $9 billion. A more elaborate station might cost
close to $20 billion.
The nation's Apollo lunar landing program cost a total of $23.5
billion in the 1960s and 1970s.
Should Congress agree to appropriate money for the project it would
be allocated over a period of years, not in one lump sum. The station
itself could be ready for use some time in the 1990s.
There is substantial support for the station in some congressional
quarters and, of course, within the aerospace industry that would
design and build such a vehicle.
''We sent a letter to the president several weeks ago, asking that
he approve development of the space station and include it in his
budget,'' said Anna Perez, an aide to Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.),
chairman of the Science, Technology and Space subcommittee.
Perez said the White House Office of Science and Technology had
requested a meeting with Gorton next week to discuss the project.
On the House side of the Capitol, Rep. Don Fuqua (D-Fla.), chairman
of the Science and Technology Committee is on the record in support
of a space station.
''There is pretty much approval that this is the next logical step
in space,'' said Radford Byerly, science consultant to the Fuqua
committee. However, there has been no formal approval of a specific
project, he added.
A lack of specifics, with regard to just how a space station would
be used, is one of the reasons the president's science adviser, Dr.
George A. Keyworth, has been less than enthusiastic about NASA's
proposal for a space station.
However, he is understood to have become somewhat more favorably
inclined to the idea in recent months.
Keyworth still believes that ''you must know what you are doing it
for,'' an associate said, referring to the specific objectives NASA
would have in mind for the project.
The Soviet Union plans to orbit a manned space station that would be
permanently staffed and gradually developed into a multi-purpose
research and manufacturing center, according to Pravda, the Communist
Party daily.
The newspapers reported the Kremlin's plans Nov. 28.
END
nyt-01-19-84 0144est
***************rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (Roger Noe) (03/09/84)
Quoting from rabbit!wolit: >> In fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all. >> Examples: the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series. But from where did the technology that enabled us to accomplish these things come? The manned space program. From where did the big push that has brought computing (and many other sciences) up to their present stage of sophistication? The manned space program. Pioneer and Viking would never have happened had we not pushed on to the moon. The earlier examples, all together, provided us with a small fraction of the data we gathered with a single moon landing mission. Future activities in planetary exploration, not to mention our technology in general, depend upon a healthy manned space program. >> Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space >> science. Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on >> exploration . . . This type of fallacious thinking is all too common. Manned space exploration draws money to unmanned space science and produces money for unmanned space missions. Unmanned space science budgets have always followed manned space science budgets, up AND down (except before there was any manned space exploration). >> Scientists are not the ones behind a station. Bull. >> Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push >> high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their >> commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to >> swallow. That's the most illogical statement I've heard in a long time. What the hell do biology texts have to do with space stations? Secondly, what makes you think that Reagan's motives are even relevant here? Manned space exploration has the potential to be the greatest pacifying influence on mankind ever seen because of its ability to unite us as one people on a tiny planet and as a statement about the human spirit. To forever deny people the opportunity to boldly go where no human has gone before is to lower them to the level of the cockroaches. >> If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the >> companies that will benefit from a station fund it. . . . >> We didn't pay for all the communication satellites that are up there >> making money, why should we suddenly be getting into the space >> business now? Every time you pay for a telephone call, you help pay for a communication satellite, whether your call goes by one or not. That is how capitalism works. You have benefitted many times over from the manned space program, whether you realize this or not. Manned space exploration overall is a money MAKING venture, producing in a decade several times what was spent on it. If space exploration is left entirely to private companies, then there will be very little basic space science research going on. Apparently you are against this research. Would you prefer space to be controlled by individual private interests? -- Roger Noe AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
karn@allegra.UUCP (Phil Karn) (03/09/84)
This appears to be the classic "men in space" vs "machines in space" debate that has gone on since the earliest days of the space program. There are merits to the arguments on both sides, but each has some fallacies as well. There is no doubt that specific, well defined, purely scientific programs can be carried out more cheaply with unmanned spacecraft. However, as beneficial as they might be to science, unmanned programs simply don't get the media hype that much less "worthwhile" (to the scientists) manned projects get. It is this public support, sometimes bordering on the romantic, that the scientists must rely on to support their work also. I wish the machine-in-space camp would stop complaining about the relative amounts of money being allocated for the shuttle and the space station. Their time would be better spent figuring out ways to get as much scientific mileage out of them as possible, and in presenting the united front to the legislature that's needed in increasing the overall NASA budget, unmanned missions included. This is why I suggest that letters to your representatives endorse support for BOTH manned and unmanned missions. Yes, science was almost an afterthought in the Apollo program, but lunar science is still far better off than if the Apollo program never existed. Without Apollo, there probably wouldn't have been a Ranger, Surveyor or Lunar Orbiter. Them's the political facts. On the other side, I'd like to see more accomodations made by the manned space flight people to the scientists, who are after all doing much with their limited resources. I cringe when I see all that empty space in the cargo bay that could have been used by scientific payloads of opportunity (bigger than GAS cans). Scientific groups are chronically poor, and applying the same rates to them as well as to commercial customers just isn't fair. Phil
wolit@rabbit.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (03/09/84)
Responding to Roger Noe (who was responding to me): > But from where did the technology [for unmanned space probes] come? > The manned space program. First of all, that's wrong. There were unmanned probes and satellites long before there were manned ones. Besides, you could trace all modern technology back to primitive levers, wheels, etc., and that still doesn't mean that NASA should spend its money building wheels. > Manned space exploration draws money to unmanned space science > and produces money for unmanned space missions. This is trickle-down budgeting. It's also voodoo. If I have one dollar for a NASA budget and I give 90 cents to the space station project, I have only ten cents left for science, not another dollar. [Scientists are not the ones behind a station.] > Bull. A most concise argument, but not compelling. > What the hell do biology texts have to do with space stations? Very simply, anyone working to have evolution removed from science textbooks is clearly NOT interested in advancing science, and cannot claim that as a justification for a space station. I thought my point was clear. Do you understand now? > Manned space exploration has the potential to be the greatest pacifying > influence on mankind ever seen. The potential, maybe. But over two decades of manned space programs has had anything but this effect in practice. Certainly, increasing the role of the military in the US space program, as Reagan wants, would have exactly the opposite result. > To forever deny people the opportunity to boldly go where no human has > gone before is to lower them to the level of the cockroaches. I have no desire to deny anyone such an opportunity. I simply refuse to pay for what I consider to be a boondoggle. If you want to build a Star Ship, and pay for it yourself, go right ahead. As I said, I'm 100% behind the private commercialization of space. My company makes a lot of its money that way. If the government had built the comsats, it would have a claim to the profits, which we want for ourselves and deserve, since we took the risk. Claiming that we all benefit from some technology does not mean that the government should get involved: we all benefit from automobiles, yet I don't want the US going into competition with General Motors. (By the way, you might note that cockroaches do indeed have the ability to "boldly go where no man has gone before" -- try following one some day!) Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ
dls@hocse.UUCP (03/09/84)
To Jan Wolitzky: I did miss the two earlier arguments, and tend to agree that the proponents arguments are a tad on the weak side. Lets see if I can do better: > >1. We've done just fine exploring space without a space station. In > fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all. Examples: > the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series. We've > returned lunar soil samples with robot probes, photographed the > moons of Saturn, all for a LOT less than it would have cost for > manned missions, and all without a space station. It is certainly true that we can *explore* space using dinky robot probes. It is also true that in the short run, it will cost less. However, the large scale exploitation of space resources probably cannot occur without a substantial human presence in space. The man vs machine debate has been going on for a long time, and the best answer usually turns out to be "a combination of both is optimal for any given goal." The best example I can give of the value of having humans in space is the recent Spacelab that had trouble with an expensive, complex camera. On an all automatic probe, that might have been the end of things. As it was, an astronaut crawled into his sleeping bag, zipped it shut, and fixed the camera BY TOUCH! I suggest that having human beings in an orbital lab with industry standard equipment may well be more more effective and less expensive than large amounts of all automatic, special-built, inflexible machinery. >2. Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space > science. Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on > exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions > of dollars. Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist, > etc., what she'd rather have the money spent on. Scientists are > not the ones behind a station. This is a standard argument, and is fundamentally wrong. Scientists would LIKE TO BELIEVE that money taken from manned space fight would go toward unmanned probes. It is much more likely that the money would go toward "social services" or "defense" depending on which side is stronger. It has seemed that in the past the science budget grew with the overall space budget and shrank with the overall space budget. I suggest that scientists are no less self-serving than any other group. To advance their careers as planetologists, they'd love to see Titan probes. This DOES NOT MEAN that Titan probes should be our first priority. If I had to choose between a Titan probe and the investigation of the resources of LEO, GEO, the Moon, or the near-Earth crossing asteroids, I think the Titan probe would come in last. A compromise can be worked out, and the lastest NASA plan for unmanned planetary exploration recognizes for the first time the role of probes in investigating the resources of the moon and asteroids. >3. Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push > high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their > commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to > swallow. Face it, they want a military base in space before the > Russkies get one. They also want it in NASA's budget so the War > Department's budget doesn't look quite so bad, and so us geeks can > feel like we're supporting science instead of a military machine. This argument ignores the actual situation. The Pentagon has consistently opposed a space station on the grounds that it is vulnerable. Reagan has asked that the station be non-military and international. I agree Reagan is not the most pro-science guy in the world, but I'm not going to let that fact affect my position on a space station, a particle accelerator, a genetics lab, or any other project the Reagan administration is involved in. >4. If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the > companies that will benefit from a station fund it. ... > We didn't pay for all the communication > satellites that are up there making money, why should we suddenly > be getting into the space business business now? 1)However great the possible commercial benefits of space, if companies a)have no protection from foreign attack or interference and b)have no clear ground rules concerning taxes and liability they are not likely to take any risks. Reagan is not just pushing a space station, he is pusing a uniform policy which supports the commericalization of space. This county has a history of building canals, railroads, highways, etc. in the belief that their long term economic benefit would more than repay any current cost to the public treasury. This has paid off handsomely in the past, and the shuttle/space station are the modern day equivalent of a railroad and a refueling station. 2)We(NASA, the government, you and I) DID pay for all the early communications satellites! It may be true that we didn't pay for the ones up there now, but we don't get the money or take the risk either. Materials processing in space(including pharmaceuticals far more important than the perfectly round spheres) is at the same stage communications satellites were in 1963. 3)This country is competing in space with heavily subsidized, national combines in both Europe and Japan. The government should lead the way in this competition, or we run the risk of ending up importing everything. You could write a book on all the reasons why a space station is important(nay, critical)to mankind's future in space. There are MANY important arguments I have not the time or the room to mention. Someone did write a book, and the book is "Project Space Station" by Dr. Brian O'Leary. It is available from Stackpole books, Cameron and Kelker Streets, P.O.Box 1831, Harrisburg PA 17105 for $12.95. Dr. O'Leary OPPOSED THE SHUTTLE for a lot of your arguments, but has since CHANGED HIS MIND. I highly recommend the book, especially to people with no clear idea why a space station is so important. Dale L Skran, At&T ISL, Holmdel.
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/12/84)
* The recent controversy over the early funding of a space station is rather disturbing, and reflects a basic split in the space-science community. Ever since the end of the Apollo program, funding for space exploration has been decreasing in real terms (although this trend may recently have been halted). As the money source dried up, two groups of extremists formed from the above-mentioned community, and started what some of them seem to regard as a fight to the death (the death of the other fellow's program). The two belligerents share a very similar belief: that given a choice of manned vs. unmanned space exploration, only one is necessary, and the other is a complete waste of time. Back in the glory days, they were able to tolerate the other group's wastage; now, however, they are in direct competition with the wasters for budget money. Every penny the wasters get is a penny drained away from absolutely vital scientific endeavours. This cannot be tolerated! The wasters must be hunted down, and eliminated to the last man! There's no time to lose! etc. Of course, one group beleives in unmanned exploration, the other in manned. The battle lines have been drawn, both sides have convincing arguments on their side, and the emotion of the arguments are drawing many unwary passers-by into the fray. The booty will be next year's NASA budget, and the more people on your side, the more likely it is that you'll be able to convince the administration of your point of view (that's dmcrcy for you). Have the people involved never heard of the (Roman?) precept, "Divide and Conquer"? This sort of infighting could easily diminish the space program as a whole. Personally, I think that both aspects of space exploration are quite necessary, and that each contributes to the advance of the other. The distinction between the two is an artificial one; after all, the two disciplines share vast amounts of technology, they're studying the same phenomena in many cases, and are designed by the same groups of people. Myself, I'd rather switch than fight... -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/12/84)
* re: Cringing over wasted shuttle payload space Hmm. I agree, it'd be a shame for the shuttle to go up with less than a full load, considering how much money it costs to launch the thing. However, it's possible for the thing to look half-empty, and yet be loaded to capacity. The shuttle has both mass and volume constraints on its payload; perhaps on the mission you refer to, they were carrying something relatively small and dense, leaving empty room in the cargo bay, even though the mass allowance had been exhausted. In that case, they could have carried up extra payload, providing that it had the density of styrofoam... ...or, perhaps not. Many scientific payloads contain perishable components, and so can't be launched at a moment's notice (or even 6 months' notice). If there are no small payloads available a year or so in advance, when the manifests are being finalized, the shuttle may end up taking off even though it has space (and mass allowance) to spare. Perhaps it'll be on missions like that, that non-NASA personnel will fly as supercargo, as "Payloads of opportunity". -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/12/84)
* responding to Jan Wolitzky:re:government funding Ahem. You seem to be stating that communications satellites were developed entirely as a private venture, and thus are a true example of private enterprise moving into space. Is this strictly true? For one thing, comsats wouldn't be possible at all, without rocket boosters, which were developed for the longest time under the aegis of the government. For another thing (this is where I'm not absolutely sure) didn't NASA, and the Navy and Air Force for that matter, launch most of the early "proof of concept" comsats, and do much of the early research? I beleive this to be so, and also beleive that industry didn't put up a cent of "risk" capital, until after the government had spent enough money to bring the risk down to a level that they could accept (ie. a Very Low Level). Correct me if I'm wrong. This seems to be a classical example of how government can help the country by helping industry. They perform the early, expensive research, that individual companies can't afford. They have a sufficient number of programs going that, even if most of them don't pan out, the ones that do will pay for those that don't. Then, when profitable technologies (such as comsats) have been identified, they're turned over to the private sector, practically as a gift. This doesn't seem to be a valid argument against a space station. Many risky technologies will be able to be tested there, and the presence of men on board will allow for the possibility of repairs to balky equipment, allowing equipment design to be much simpler, and hence orders of magnitude less expensive (presumably). Since your central argument seems to be "if it needs doing, let private industry do it; they've done it before", and since as far as I know, they >haven't< "done it before", doesn't this demolish your argument? -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/14/84)
Falacy 1. We've done just fine exploring space without a space station. In
fact, we've done fine without man at all.
Much of what we know about the Sun is derived from data collected by the
Skylab solar telescope. Most of what we know about Lunar soil is from
samples returned by astronauts. We've learned a great deal about the Moon
from experiments carried out in situ and instruments left on the Moon.
Space station is essential to answer many questions life scientists have
about the role gravity plays in living organisms. There are plans for
several large telescopes that cannot be built without space station or
something like it. Space telescope will depend on shuttle astronauts
for refurbishment, repair, and instrument changeout. If all goes well
on the next mission, Solar Max will become useful because of man in
space.
Falacy 2. Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
science. Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
exploration, and they're not talking about pennies, but billions
of dollars. Ask an astronomer, planetologist, climatologist.
Space science funding has been a more or less constant percentage of
the total NASA budget. In the late seventies and early eighties when
NASA's budget declined so did that of space science. It was blamed
on the shuttle, but the facts are that space scientists were not
making their case before Congess. Fortunately, this situation
has changed. If you ask a life scientist or materials scientist about
the space station you might get a very different answer than from the
disciplines you mentioned. If you really want to take money from
one department and give to space science, why don't you pick on DOD?
If we all pull together we can do great things. If the space
science folks insist on back biting space station it will weaken
the entire space effort.
Falacy 3. Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
swallow. Face it, they want a military base in space before the
Russkies get one.
DOD opposed space station when the chips were down. They were never
that enthusiastic and eventually gave a presentation against the station
to the White House. Proof of the pudding is the heavy emphasis Reagan
put on international participation. DOD doesn't want international
participation for security reasons. Incidentally, DOD is shying away
from shuttle because of the publicity on the flights. I suspect Reagan
wants space station primarily for prestige and commercial activities.
A bit of trivia, the final White House vote on space station had only
one aye vote, the President's. Turned out it was the only vote that
counted.
Falacy 4. If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
companies that will benefit from a station fund it.
We didn't pay for all the communication
satellites that are up there making money.
NASA did lead the way in communication satellites and continues to
do research in support of advanced communication technologies. Building
basic infrastructure, such as space station, and doing long lead time
research and development is a function that government performs well.
The tax return on the increased economic activity usually, and in the
case of the space program has, been in excess of the original government
investment. The auto industry is a classic case. The auto industry
would have gotten no where if the government hadn't built the roads.
In turn, the government taxes gas and recoups a sizable portion of
it's investment.jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (03/14/84)
Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable? It really isn't. There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep space objects (even satellite killers only operate in LEO). Constructing such a weapon system could only have one purpose (to attack the space station) and would be politically difficult. Finally, the construction of a manned space station would make it difficult to attack (thick radiation and meteor shielding, and perhaps some magnetic field generators to push large spacebourne objects from a distance). All these things make a space station MUCH less vulnerable than many important earthbound targets. Besides all this -- attacking the space station would be considered an act of war, something that would be foolish given the present (and probably future) state of the world.
elias@tesla.UUCP (Steve Elias) (03/14/84)
Regarding the use of a space station if one is built -- anyone who thinks it won't be used by DoD, no matter how they complain about it now, is in terminal dreamland.
dhp@ihnp3.UUCP (Douglas H. Price) (03/15/84)
Pardon by flames, but... Jan, If you want to commit suicide, please leave me and the rest of the species out of it. Your opposition to the space station, (and by strong inference manned spaceflight in general), is not only foolish and short-sighted, but is also extremely dangerous. In fact, given a strict analysis of an individual's duty to the species, it is downright IMMORAL. What gives nuclear weapons such a terrible prospect in our minds? Surely it is not the simple magnitude of their destructiveness; rather it is their genocidal properties which drives our horror of them. Laying aside any discussions of multilateral nuclear disarmament, which given the current nature of the beast seems unlikely (please, no counterflames on this one!) the fact that all of our eggs are in one basket should be food for thought. Any movement to raise the number of baskets to greater than one should be cause for celebration rather than fomenting dour grumblings about who's pocket is going to be picked this time. I am not suggesting that the space station will lead immediately to the preservation of the species, only that it is a logical first step that must be taken NOW, while we still have the surplus resources to support it. I agree with a previous commenter on the net; if U.S. law allowed for direct contribution to specific agencies and programs, I would not hesitate to give additional money out of my own pocket to support manned space flight, and planetary programs as well, by the way. (Somebody got a fire extinguisher? My fingers are a little toasty...) Douglas H. Price ..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp
kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) (03/15/84)
* In reference to the objection that space stations aren't >really< vulnerable: Hoo, boy, are you wrong! You say that satellite killers work only in LEO; not true, for them to work in higher orbits they need only be put on a larger booster. Besides which, the planned station is going to be in LEO anyhow, making your argument pointless. You say that the thick radiation shielding and electromagnetic meteor-replellors would make a station well- nigh invulnerable; those ideas are pure science-fiction, and don't represent the state of the art of space station manufacture at all well. A station would be built in a manner similar to the way Skylab was, with the thinnest possible structurally sound walls, to save weight, and with all kinds of necessary equipment (such as solar arrays and heat radiators) hanging off the sides. This would be very vulnerable to almost any sort of attack; thrown projrctiles, fragmentation bombs, laser or beam weapons, etc. Thick shielding will come with later stations, perhaps those hollowed out of asteroids. At present, however, we don't have any asteroids to work with. Lastly, you say that destroying a space station would be an act of war, and so wouldn't occur in these unstable times, for fear of setting off The Big One. Friend, the only reason the military would want to be on a space station, is so that they could use it during The Big One! If the Enemy were planning a war, and the US military had a satellite base, the Enemy wouldn't quail at shooting the station down, any more than they'd quail at shooting up a battleship or an air force base. How then would the fact of shooting up the station being an act of war, deter the Enemy from attacking the station during a war? Sheesh! -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll
REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (03/18/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Date: 13 Mar 84 16:46:46-PST (Tue)
From:ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg@Ucb-Vax
Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable? It
really isn't. There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep
space objects (even satellite killers only operate in LEO).
The initial space statin WOULD be in LEO, so I don't understand the
relevance between your statement about deep space objects and the
point you're making. Remember, we're not talking about L-5 colonies
here, or even geosynchronous orbit. We're talking about a station that
is built by people on STS flights and regularily serviced by STS.
Remember STS is restricted to LEO, a few hundred miles from the
surface of the Earth.
The other points you raise about the space station being physically
more robust, are valid. Many methods of knocking out ICBMs depend on
the very thin skin of the ICBM, so thin if you drop a wrench from a
hundred feet above it and it hits the ICBM just right the ICBM
promptly gets a fuel leak followed by explosion. A high speed
projectile (bullet, meteor, fragment of anything at orbigal speeds) or
small explosive would surely kill an ICBM (if the ICBM didn't explode
directly, it'd burn up on reenty due to the pucture in its skin). By
comparison, a solid metal space-station shell might puncture from such
a projectile but not undergo an explosion, and since it doesn't plan
to reenter the atmosphere the puncture would not be fatal.
As for heavy radiation shielding, I think that applies only to later
space stations/colonies such as L-5 et al based on massive amounts of
lunar materials available at low cost. The first space station would
be much more robust than an ICBM, but still somewhat vulnerable if
somebody really wanted to commit an act of war. (At last that's my
personal assessment.)cozadde@trsvax.UUCP (03/19/84)
#R:ihlts:-38600:trsvax:56000010:000:624 trsvax!cozadde Mar 19 12:30:00 1984 To: Phil Bravo!!!! That was one of the most balanced statements I have seen on the debate between "manned" and "machined" space missions. The jealous bickering between the two sides just creates the ammo needed to destroy both sides by the 'anti-space' types. The Proxmires of this world just love to have these love-spats in front of a bunch of Con- gressmen that have hordes of special interests groups demanding their "fair share" of the taxpayers' wallet be taken out of the space (both "manned" & "machined") programs. lt. of marines ...microsoft!trsvax!cozadde ...ctvax!trsvax!cozadde
al@ames-lm.UUCP (03/20/84)
This is actually on empty shuttle space. There are three unmentioned reasons for 'wasted' space in the bay. o The shuttle has severe center of gravity restraints. The heavy stuff has to go in the back and if it's not heavy enough you can't put anything in the front. o The shuttle is not yet capable of it's full nominal weight carrying capacity - 65,000 lb. It won't be for a few years yet. o The IUS, built to fail by the Air Force, has caused cancellation of two shuttle flights and caused another to go up almost empty. The damage is continuing by the way. The most recent IUS's delived to NASA failed their ground tests. If you want a turkey, give the project to the military.
murray@t4test.UUCP (Murray Lane) (03/30/84)
> What gives nuclear weapons such a terrible prospect in our minds? > Surely it is not the simple magnitude of their destructiveness; rather > it is their genocidal properties which drives our horror of them. This properly belongs in net.politics, but here goes anyway. I heartily disagree with the above statement. Although the prospect of genocide certainly is factor, the main thing that makes nuclear weapons so terrible is that for the first time non-soldiers can be killed with no chance of getting out of the destructive area. In WWII, we Americans were able to sit in our nice safe homes thousands of miles from the destruction. Only the soldiers had to die. Even in Europe, you could send your children out to the countryside where their chance of survival was good. With nuclear weapons, there is no safe place, and even if there was, there will not be enough warning for you to get there. THAT is what makes nuclear weapons so scary. Murray at Intel @ t4test P.S. If you are going to flame, do it by mail, this is supposed to be a space newsgroup, not poitics.