REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix (11/23/82)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC> In Monday's edtion of the Peninsula Times-Tribune, staff writer Dave Farrell interviewed Angelo Guastaferro, deputy director of Ames Research Center in Mountain View. His answer to the question about permanently inhabited space station was depressing, while his answer to the question about why spend money in space showed he didn't understand (or think important) many of the reasons I think development of space is important. Here are those two verbatim, with my comments after each: Q. Are we moving toward a permanently inhabited space station? A. I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. I'm 50, so I'm saying by the time I'm 75, we might see an extension of some sort of space platform or space station where useful things are taking place. They will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start building toward that. [Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be tragic if he's right.] Q. A fundamental question is, "Why spend so much money on space projects when there are so many things that need to be done on Earth?" How do you answer that one? A. First, the space program is important to people from a national prestige standpoint. They wouldn't want to live in a country like the United States without believing they are the best and that they are the intellectual leader. It isn't by accident that every shuttle and every U.S. spacecraft and every U.S. astronaut carries an American flag. It is symboic. One of the first things done on the moon was not to put up a NASA sign. It was to put up a U.S. flag. Second, (the missions) help you understand yourself. Going to Venus and being able to measure it is like an experiment in terms of saying, "It is so far from the sun. It might be spinning a different way. Why does that planet have the sulphuric cloud? Did something happen there that is going to happen to us?" You could start doing comparative planetology, not because you're curious about Venus, but to help understand yourself. It's what we call global habitability. We start understanding the biosphere and the geosphere in a very inward sense. The third thing to consider isthe pioneering spirit of this country -- the same thing that makes you as an individual want to climb that mountain. I think it is part of our nature. [Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3) survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale (via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space program.]
bc (12/04/82)
Well, this is interesting. Let's take it a point at a time:
"They will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I
don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start
building toward that."
[Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a
permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be
tragic if he's right.]
Tragic indeed. But what does he consider a short period of time? Under
six months? In that case we ALREADY have a permanent presence in
space, at least some of us (the Russians) do. If he insists on
longer, I will bet a bottle of Chivas to a Coke that the criterion wil
be fulfilled by the Russians within 5 years. The huge booster they
are reported to be perfecting has to be intended to ferry large masses
for the construction of permanent stations.
[Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and
last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our
national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and
maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3)
survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond
Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale
(via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview
was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space
program.]
Yes, though short-changed may be an inadequate word. Maybe sabotaged is
better. I note that he completely left out the latest party line at
NASA: the military purpose. And REM has left off a number of reasons
which might have more immediate impact on a taxpayer: placement and
repair of sattellites (we still can't do that in high orbit, even
with the shuttle), and research other than astronomical which can have
economic benefit, or can improve quality of life, to name a couple.
Lines of research which might prove fruitful are medical
investigations into effects of zero-g on physiology, wide-area sensor
studies of geology and topography, and studies of the upper
atmosphere from above. Granted, not all these things require manned
spaceflight, but they'd be a lot easier and cheaper to do if done from
a permanent station than from a series of specialized robots.
Bruce Cohen
Intel
...{pur-ee,hplabs}!intelqa!omsvax!bcREM@MIT-MC@sri-unix (12/06/82)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC> I think you misunderstood my point about "we" not having a permanent presence in space even in 2000. I was speaking of the USA not the USSR in the "we". I think the USSR will reach the point of overlapping missions within a couple years (at most 5) after which time there will never be a moment without a soviet astronaut in space. (That's my precise definition of permanent manned presence in space, overlapping manned space missions from that time onward to the distant future.) By comparison that deputy NASA director would have us with only 2-week or slightly longer (perhaps a month or two) missions all the way thru to 2000, with no permanent structure in space for them to visit, and by the time "we" establish a permanent presence the soviets will be doing grander things we can only speculate at now (L-5, O'Neill LEO city, manned Mars orbiter, full military fleets commanded by an admiral or general in space, etc.). P.s. for comparison, permanent unmanned space presence was established in 1957 with Sputnik 1. There's never been a moment since then without at least one active man-made satellite in space.