REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (01/22/84)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
A station would be used at first as a scientific observation point
above Earth's obscuring atmosphere, to search for resources on our
planet ...
Um, this paragraph is a non sequitur. Being up above the obscuring
atmosphere is exactly an argument AGAINST observing from orbit. In
fact in many cases data from ERTS/Landsat is unsuitable because of the
atmosphere between the satellite and the ground, and U-2 or P-3
airplanes must be used instead. The correct argument for satellite
observation of Earth to locate resources is that despite the obsuring
atmosphere which present problems in interpreting the data, the global
coverage (suveying large areas at uniform low resolution) at minimal
cost (once you're in orbit, the fuel to "fly" another 25,000 miles once
around the whole Earth again is virtually zero) more than compensates
in many cases, making satellite-based ground-surveying more efficient
in many cases than airplane-based ground-surveying.
(I resent news stories which give false arguments for something I
favor, so that later those arguments can be attacked by an adversory,
and convince the public to be against that something because they never
hear the correct arguments in its favor.)