cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay@sri-unix (11/29/82)
From: Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay> "I object to the restriction that a use for a space station must be scientific or technical. I'd like to see it used as a setting for movies that have real zero-gee special effects (in addition to all the scientific and manufacturing stuff I want done there). Why are they making that (in my opinion) arbitrary restriction on use?" -- REM at MIT-MC I hardly disagree with you. But it is fair to say that the purpose of NASA's making these funds available is their explicit recognition of their narrowness in thinking creatively about space and how we might explore and use it, so even they agree with you in principle, if not as to the specifics of your proposal. Beyond that, it scarcely needs pointing out that artistic activities are given short shrift in government funding in general; space funding is a microcosm of federal money management in general, right down to the revival of the program because of its military potential. This is in turn a reflection of the role of science and technology in our culture and perhaps especially its obvious utility to centralized governments such as that ruling the United States. Perhaps you should submit a proposal and see if you can convince them to change their mind! Even if you don't succeed in getting the flicks made, at least they will have been exposed to the idea that there's more to space than laser bases and telescopes. And NASA needs to have that said to them, even if they can't understand it yet. asc
cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay@sri-unix (11/30/82)
From: Andrew Cromarty <cromarty.umass-coins@UDel-Relay> "(1) You're saying even if somebody in NASA likes my idea for space movies, it's "not their department" so they by law are required to officially ignore my suggestion?" --REM at MIT-MC No, that's not what I said, although it certainly may be true. I don't know to what extent NASA's use of their money is restricted, either in this case or in general. Rather, I suggest that they are unlikely to fund your suggestion because the decision as to whom to fund will be forged by people who are at best dedicated technofreaks, and more likely professional bureaucrats, neither of whom I would expect to be predisposed to non-technological uses of space. Indeed, if they already were so predisposed, then it seems unlikely that they would have issued a statement that is so obviously a paean to Serious Technological Uses of Space. But then, of course, are we less guilty than they? The bulk of what appears in this digest is no less of a paean to technology. How often do participants discuss the use of space for art? Everyone would seemingly prefer to hear about all the neat gadgetry on this STS flight, or to flame about exobiology. I'm a technofreak too, but I couldn't survive very comfortably on the Earth without the arts, and certainly would not need them the less were I in space. As much as I would personally like to be in space, I don't delude myself that it would be so fascinating 24 hours a day that I'd never even notice an absence of, say, music or theater in my environment; and what do astronauts see of the arts now? We should expect life in space to be substantially more *boring* than on Earth for a long time to come, if only because it's so underdevloped -- no, *un*developed -- that there just wouldn't be much to do, except hard work. (2) Perhaps I (or Pournelle) should write to somebody at NASA, as an eyeopener only, not for effect, and also write to whoever funds public TV stations to cause Ballet and Theatre to show on PBS, for effect? Is that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or some other agency? -- REM Sure, write to the National Endowment for the Arts if they still have any money after Reaganomics. But again, my suggestion is not that people write "as an eyeopener only"; rather that the only effect we can reasonably expect initial proposals of this sort to have is that of eyeopener. In fact, I'm quite concerned that the people who are establishing space development policy (did I say "development policy"? Hah!) are not attending to the problems of making space liveable. I might be willing to exclude L5'ers and the like, who are making some attempt to plan entire habitats. But at least on the basis of what I see coming out of NASA, their idea of people living in space is that they don't, and if they do it's for short periods, during which time they perform Government-Approved Serious Technological or Scientific Work. If we are to successfully populate space, then it is trivially apparent that we shall need the full range of human activities going on there -- or at least the peacable ones -- and I'm hardpressed to say that NASA recognizes this. But maybe if people start saying it at them, they'll eventually catch on. ...Then again, maybe not. They want space next week at NASA if they want it at all, which to them seems to mean flashy space shots instead of more efficient jet launches for shuttles, military funding, and perhaps a nod in the direction of potential space industry. (That is, some people at NASA seem to want it so bad they can taste it, while others shake their heads and say "maybe in the next century....", with the latter group apparently dominating NASA at the moment.) Sounds pretty gloomy, come to think of it. Maybe we need private funding of space ventures just to ensure that something actually comes of space development. [No Statist flames meant to be invited by this observation.] asc
rcj@sri-unix (12/06/82)
Where would "Filmed on location" come from if we didn't have jets to get filmmakers from one place to another? My point is, we gotta have a reliable space station up there before we can film, paint, dance, and sing in it. Hell, they just very recently came up with a zero-g toilet designed for female plumbing!!! These things take time (and a lotta money), Curtis Jackson (...!floyd!burl!rcj)