Heiny.henr@parc-max.arpa (03/13/84)
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@parc-max.arpa> Since I don't have an electronic copy of your reply to clydes' reply, I'll simply list my replies (how recursive...) by index. 1. Name 5 new unmanned interplanetary probes scheduled for the 1980-1990. How many were launched in the latter 70's? Is this doing 'just fine'? How much ore has been refined by unmanned probes? How much medicine? How can an unmanned probe do long term investigation of weightlessness on humans? 2. It depends on where the money comes from. It could also slow the arms race. Building and launching your unmanned probes in orbit would significantly reduce their cost: the launch would be less of a shock, and require less energy. If the probe could be built with space aquired materials, it would be even cheaper. Name two from each category who oppose it. Who is behind it (I don't think it's the Illuminati). 3. I can't argue with your point about the Reagan admin, but look at it this way: should we have ignored German rocket technology in the 40's and 50's because it was used militarily or had potential military use? By the time the station is built, the Reagan admin will no longer be in power. 4. The US now longer operates on a free enterprise system. Social control (but no ownership) of most major industries is not an incentive for private ventures. Could you afford this with the government sucking up 40% of the economy? The market for thin wafers of silicon wasn't very good in 1955, either. Chaotically Yours, Chris Heiny Xerox Corp, Rochester N.Y.
els@pur-phy.UUCP (Eric Strobel) (03/14/84)
Some general things need to be said about the discussion over the
space station (and in particular to Jan Wolitsky)...
a) The military sector has been among the most strident
opponents of the space station. The claim is that they can do
just fine with the shuttle and their current inventory of boosters.
More likely, they can see money being shifted away from the quiet
subsidy of some of their activities by NASA money.
b) Scientists are not the ones behind the station????
Come off it!! Astronomers very definitely want and need a space station.
The manned presence nearby an orbiting observatory will mean greater
flexibility in data gathering, since an arbitrarily large number of
instruments may be available to put into the focal plane. Space telescope
will require a shuttle launch to change instruments. There are also a
number of short duration events (some of which are totally random, such as
gamma ray burstars) for which astronomers would love to have data ranging
over the entire spectrum. Since some regions of the spectrum are only
visible from space, and since some of these observations would require
someone present to make minute by minute changes, a space station is the
only logical choice. The only other alternative, if you're willing to
pay for it, is to pay to boost a Cray up along with the massive amount of
other equipment required to maintain it.
What planetologist would'nt drool over the possibility of putting
15,000 kg of instruments in orbit about his/her favorite planet? The
shuttle could take an instrument or two in spare space for many flights,
gradually building up quite an inventory at the space station. Then, a
group of researchers could essentially call the space station and have a
probe made to order. Then only one special shuttle flight might be needed
to get a booster up for the probe.
Climatologists would want someone up there, since many important
atmospheric phenomena are so fleeting that by the time the data from an
unmanned satellite are analysed and the researcher sees what is going on,
it is probably too late to get more detailed data.
Another point I regarding astronomy. One of the big projects of
the next 20 or so years will be the construction of large baseline
interferometers in orbit, allowing nearby stars to be resolved as well
as our Sun was resolved in the early part of this century. Anyone who
has ever worked with a Michelson interferometer knows that you need to
continuously coax it to remain in alignment. This necessitates having
someone in orbit to maintain the device (though, admittedly the job will
be easier since the device is very well isolated from most possible
disturbances).
c) We've done just fine using unmanned missions?? By whose definition?
How much would we know about elementary particles or semiconductors or ... ,
if we told a scientist that he could spend as much time and money as he or
she liked on a particular experiment, but could only run that experiment
for ONE HOUR IN A LIFETIME!! In addition, tell the experimenter the there
will be no access to the equipment, no matter what sort of piece breaks down.
Add to this the restriction that the equipment must be subjected to all sorts
of wild stresses AND must weigh less than 500 lbs. AND must be no larger
than a large suitcase. How much science could you do????
FLAME ON!
Now we come to a truly silly statement that has nothing to do with the
space station. How can any rational human being maintain that the President
is trying to remove evolution from biology texts?? How do you spell that?
P-A-R-A-N-O-I-D!!!!!! There are, of course, those few who wish to put the
Creation story into the texts, but I seriously doubt they can succeed. There
are also those who are writing biology texts who put forth evolution as if
it is true. I think this is much more dangerous than the Creationists, as
this undermines the teaching of critical thought and scientific method to our
children. Evolution is NOT true! It also is NOT false! Evolution is merely
a theory!! As with any other theory, it needs to continually be checked by
new experiments and methods. In fact, experimentally, I would probably have
a better case of raising General Relativity to the level of absolute truth!
It must be remembered that there have been theories in the past that have
apparently matched the data, but were totally wrong.
Aah! That felt good!
FLAME OFF!
On the subject of manned vs. unmanned, the comparison of spinoffs of
one to the other is a case of the proverbial apples and oranges. The two
sorts of spaceflight put different restrictions on equipment and therefore
force different sorts of innovation. After all, we expect to get the
manned vehicle back, but all we get back from unmanned missions are a whole
bunch of electronic impulses( excluding a few expensive sample return missions).
I hope that further discussions on this topic will keep this in mind.
(`') (`')
\\ _____ // Writing cause I got work, hanging by
\\ / \ // my bruised and mangled thumbs at the
\/ O O \/ off-the-wall teddy bear keyboard of
| o |
\_____/ ERIC STROBEL
/|+++|\
//-----\\ decvax!pur-ee!Physics:els
// \\
(_^_) (_^_)