TAW@SU-AI@sri-unix.UUCP (09/21/83)
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW@SU-AI>
n013 0736 21 Sep 83
BC-SPACE-STATION
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure from
his political strategists to endorse a major new space endeavor, the
orbiting space station, as a tactical move against Sen. John Glenn,
the former astronaut who could be Reagan's Democratic opponent in the
next election.
Administration officials say the president is being encouraged to
announce the new multibillion-dollar project soon and in some
dramatic fashion that, in tone and spirit, would be reminiscent of
President Kennedy's dramatic call in 1961 to send men to the moon.
In this way, according to some White House thinking, the president
might neutralize Glenn's ''hero image'' and demonstrate a commitment
to maintaining American leadership in space technology. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration has lobbied vigorously in recent
months to win support for the space station as ''the next logical
step'' in the nation's space program.
Although the project has strong backing in Congress, in the
aerospace industry and among some in the White House, opposition has
been raised by the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the Office of Management and Budget. The opponents argue
that NASA has not made a convincing case to justify the project's
estimated cost of $6 billion to $9 billion by 1991.
Bruce Abel, press secretary to the president's science adviser,
George A. Keyworth 2d, emphasized Tuesday that no decision has been
reached by the administration and that no announcement appeared to be
imminent. The matter, he said, would ''continue to be discussed over
a couple of months.''
Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's
science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late'' to
show that the administration's support for a stronger civilian space
program was anything but lukewarm. Although as a Senator he has taken
little direct part in space politics, Glenn is the only Democratic
candidate so far to announce support for a more active space program.
In an article in the September issue of Spectrum, a publication of
the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Glenn said:
''Our spirit as a nation is reflected in our willingness to explore
the unknown for the benefit of all humanity, and space is a prime
medium in which to test our mettle. We have the resources and the
talent to maintain our superiority in space as well as on earth. All
we need is the leadership and the will.''
The senator added that a permanently manned space station in earth
orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.''
In an announcement in July, the space agency said that if
development began next year a large space station could be put into
orbit by 1991. Preliminary plans call for a station, an assembly of
living and working modules, that could house four to six astronauts
at a time and serve as a base for scientific experiments, the
processing of industrial products in the micro-gravity environment,
earth observations and the deployment of vehicles going out to the
more distant reaches of space. People and supplies would be ferried
to the station by the space shuttles.
The Soviet Union has made no secret of its plans to assemble a large
station in orbit, perhaps later in this decade. The Salyut 7, now in
orbit with two astronauts aboard, is believed to be a precursor to
such an installation.
James M. Beggs, the NASA Administrator, said Monday that the United
States would build a space station sooner or later. ''If we delay, we
will lose part of our lead,'' he said at an aerospace electronics
conference. ''It would not only be dangerous, but tragic, if we lose
the momentum we have developed in the last 25 years. We, therefore,
believe the space station is an idea whose time has come.''
But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the President's
Office of Science and Technology, reflected the go-slow attitude of
many opponents of the program. ''We have plenty of study and
experimentation to do before we need to move on to another level of
sophistication,'' he said at the same conference. ''What corporation
would spend billions to construct a plant before either the
manufacturing technology or the market were even established?''
Both the Pentagon and the CIA contend that there is no military or
intelligence-gathering mission that the space station could perform
that could not be done as well and at less cost with unmanned
satellites. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report last
week saying that there was no immediate scientific need for the
station but acknowledging ''the possibility that a suitably designed
space station could serve as a very useful facility in support of
future space science activities.''
nyt-09-21-83 1034edt
***************REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (09/23/83)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> What, even with Glenn having his way it'll take until 1991 before the very firstperanent space station is up there? Whatever happened to quick-and-dirty space station out of old Apollo/Gemini airlocks and used STS fuel tanks etc? Can't we get something primitive working in 3-4 years and then see where to go from there? What do the rest of you think of the timetable for getting a space station up there?
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (09/26/83)
Funny that the CIA opposes a space-station project on the grounds
of cost. According to figures mentioned by former CIA agent John Stock-
well in a talk given recently in Austin, the CIA could pay for such a
project two or three times over in a s i n g l e year. And what return
do we get on our investment with the CIA?
-- Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCPchris@umcp-cs.UUCP (09/27/83)
NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure
from his political strategists to endorse a major new space
endeavor, the orbiting space station, as a tactical move
against Sen. John Glenn....
@begin(cynicism)
As ever, the march of science is subservient to politics....
@end(cynicism)
Well, looks like we've got a good chance of putting up a space station
(finally!).
... opposition has been raised by the Defense Department....
The opponents argue that NASA has not made a convincing case to
justify the project's estimated cost of $6 billion to $9
billion by 1991.
$1 billion a year, and the @i[Defense Department] is screaming about
the cost?!?!
Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's
science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late''
to show that the administration's support for a stronger
civilian space program was anything but lukewarm.
Actually, I doubt it. The average guy will only remember Reagan by the
last few months of his term in office.
[Glenn] added that a permanently manned space station in earth
orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.''
Which it is.
But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the
President's Office of Science and Technology,
Good thing it's "former"....
[said] ''We have plenty of study and experimentation to do
before we need to move on to another level of
sophistication.... What corporation would spend billions to
construct a plant before either the manufacturing technology or
the market were even established?''
But the Defense Department does that all the time!
Chris
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relayhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/27/83)
Many things, including the space program and the proposed space
station, would work a lot better if emphasis was placed on building
prototypes quickly and getting hard test results instead of having
to plan the perfect <whatever> on the basis of theoretical pontification
and computerized guesswork. (The current debate about ABM systems is
a really gross example of how bad things get when there is no hard
test data to support or refute peoples' arguments.)
The trouble is, NASA cannot afford to make mistakes. The preferred
"try it and see" attitude is impossible in a political environment
where any failure is a major disaster. As long as space development
has to go through NASA, and as long as NASA has to fight for every
last dollar every year, there is little hope of getting fast results
out of a new project.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryKatz.UCI@Rand-Relay@sri-unix.UUCP (09/30/83)
I think that you have a good point. Many of the early NASA views on how to build a space station were based on hollowing out Saturn V boosters and attaching them to a maintenance core. The idea was that since the boosters were already leaving the ground, why not make use of them. The same argument applies to the Shuttle's external tank. How much would it take to modify it into an accessable compartment? How much extra fuel would it take to leave the tanks in LEO instead of having them burn up in the atmosphere? I think that NASA and the government may be thinking too high tech, but not of what is needed. What we need first is not specially designed facilities, but life support and space -- the rest will follow.
REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (10/06/83)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> One point that seems to have been missed is that it's precisely because no company would invest 1E9 dollars in something not really proven, that we have to get government to do it. It's these major things that are a step forward, that are too big for any company to risk, and with not enough payoff for the investor, but obviously good for the nation (or world) as a whole, that we need government (specificaly NASA) to do. If the payoff was good for the company making the investment, with proven technology, and not much payoff for other companies not investing or for the populace at large, the big oil companies and conglomerates would be doing it. Thus the comments that "gee, it's not a sure thing, no company would do it because it's too much risk, so let's not have government do it either" are nonsense.