DBraunstein.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (03/16/84)
A further comment with respect to the possible military use of of the proposed space station. If NASA is sucessful in forming a partner- ship with the ESA, the station cannot be used for military purposes because the charter of the ESA only permits the development of missions that are civilian, thus peaceful, and if possible profitable. NASA may have been born out of a military womb in the middle of the Cold War, and the shuttle may have been delayed because of military requirements ( -aside from the well known materials problems), but the space station is one chance to maintain a peaceful course in the near earth environment, maybe with some profit on the side!
Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (03/16/84)
In regards to hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax's fallacy #1. Although I would like to see a space station, I must admit that I, along with some people in the astronomy department at my old school believe that unmanned missions are as effective in getting MUCH (but ofcourse not ALL) of the job done. And they are terribly expensive things to do when the budget is tight. The message mentioned that lunar soil was returned by manned missions. Unmanned vehicles did return lunar soil. However, an astronaut is able to identify more interesting samples. Better robot technology may help that, however. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the space station all the way!!