[net.space] Space station?

chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/19/83)

<begin cynical mode>

Hah!  The *real* reason they've decided to push for space stations
is because they're afraid the Soviets will beat us to it!

<end cynical mode>

However, it's not too bad of a means to a good end.

				- 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-Relay

eric@aplvax.UUCP (07/19/83)

	The real reason for the sudden administration interest is that
Reagan is starting to think about how he wants his term in office remembered.
What better way than an aggressive (hopefully non-militarily) space program?

						Eric Bergan
						...!aplvax!eric

bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/20/83)

We all recall how the Space Station in 2001 had both Russians and
Americans on it.  Why can't we be inspired by Clarke and do this now?

Set up a purely scientific space station, and apportion sections to
each spacefaring nation based on $ contributed.  It is also possible, I
would think, that the sections of the station could be secure so that
people could do their secret research.

Detente again, anyone?
-- 
	Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304

rwhw@5941ux.UUCP (07/21/83)

I would assume that a space station would be the ideal place defense
equipment that could easily destroy ICBMs. Therefore Reagan might not
be so wrong in his thinking.

                                    Roy

<insert "for" between place and defense> sorry.

geo@watarts.UUCP (07/22/83)

I like the idea of a multinational space station too.
One additional advantadge, besides saving money, would
be that it would prevent paranoia over what those guys
were doing up there if you shared the same station.
	Cordially, Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo
	(allegra||ihnp4)!watmath!watarts!geo

raf@hopd3.UUCP (07/29/83)

I saw a small paragraph hidden on a back page
of our local paper the other day that sid
the air force has succesfully used a laser to
knock down a series of ten air to air missles
travelling in the 2000 mph range.
It went on to say that this system would not
be effective against ICBMs because they go much
faster - around 20,000 mph. Also range is a
factor, so using a space station for the
purpose of knocking down ICBMs is not feasable
yet.

It seems to me though that this is a giant
step in a technology that may make nuclear
weapons at long range obsolete. Let us hope,

			Ron Flannery

philb@shark.UUCP (Philip Biehl) (08/01/83)

	Able to knock down ICBMs screaming down at 20,000 mph, saving us
	from nuclear holocaust, eh??
	Did you ever think what such space based lasers could do to ground
	targets such as cities? X-ray, ultrviolet (ultraviolent), and 
	infrared lasers can do just as terrible, if not worse, things to
	the human body as nuclear weapons. Not to mention particle beams.
	I don't see that these kind of space based weapons are any better
	that anything we have come up with so far.......... 

					Waiting,
					Phil Biehl

student@nmtvax.UUCP (08/02/83)

The main way of the space stations "killing" ICBM's is by frying
the crap out of the electronic circuits disabling its ability to
detonate.

Very few cities are so dependent on IC chips.

Sincerely;
Greg Hennessy
..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!student

braddy@houxl.UUCP (08/03/83)

	Yeah!
	What *would* it take to direct (even some) of our energy and $
	into space stations for constructive purposes instead of
    yet another weapons system? The nuclear arms mess has
    gotten so out of hand that solving the problem means
    disposing of huge quantities of existing bombs, etc. No small job!
	If we'd to do something decisive about the lazers-in-space
	issue *before* they get them up there, maybe it would be
	an easier problem to solve.  Or have they already begun
	and the recent publicity is but a way to further their cause?

	David..			...houxl!braddy

els@CSvax:Pucc-H:pur-phy.UUCP (08/03/83)

       Don't be ridiculous!!!!!!  Directed energy weapons, even over 10K miles,
won't cover an area much more than a few sq. meters.  That is what makes them
so difficult to use against ICBM's.  To use such a thing against a city is 
absurd!  Of course you might consider using them against aircraft, such as
Air Force One!!!!!!!   (That's making the only minimially absurd assumption
that your weapon can punch thru the atmosphere!)


                                    els[Eric Strobel]
                                    pur-ee!pur-phy!els