Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!ames-lm!al
From: al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Planetary Program
Message-ID: <145@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Feb-84 21:55:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.145
Posted: Thu Feb  2 21:55:52 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 03:12:37 EST
References: <586@seismo.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 44

If I read Ted Flinn's argument right, one should plan a second experiment
(in this case a planetary probe) before really understanding the first
because it takes 15 to 17 years to fly a space craft.  Maybe the real
answer is to cut that time down to something reasonable, say 3-5 years.
The 15-17 years was broken down into 10 years of milling about and 5-7
years of work.  I don't know what to do about the milling about, we
certainly do a great deal of that here (I must admit I've contributed
by share); but it seems to me that it should be possible to speed
design and implementation, since we've already built
several deep space probes and presumably learned enough to speed
the process.  

There is another approach to getting more missions without designing
new probes before examining the data from old ones.  There are 
a lot of objects in the solar system, nine planets, our moon, several
other moons, comets and asteroids.  While Jupiter may be more glamorous,
good science could be done with Lunar, cometary, and asteroidal probes.
The moon hasn't had much attention since Apollo and the comets and asteroids 
have never been visited.  Doesn't it make sense to go out there and take
a look?

Actually, things have worked out so that there has been time 
to examine the data.  Galileo has been delayed enough to incorporate
Voyager results and the Mars new start comes several years since the last
probe to Mars.  The planetary program proposed by that NASA committee
(I can't remember the name) seems balanced and sensible.  

What I do object to are those that claim that the U.S. space program is falling
apart.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The program is strong,
vigorous, well funded and has mainained a continuous stream of
accomplishment from Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Viking, Voyager, Skylab,
IRAS, shuttle, spacelab and on to space telescope, Galileo, and space station.

My other pet peeve are space scientist trying to sabotage manned programs
such as space station.  It we had a space station, Solar Max would have
been fixed years ago, IRAS could be 'refueled' with coolant and work for
years instead of months, and we could accumulate instruments in orbit
instead of using them for a few months or years and then abandoning them
for lack of simple repairs and resupply.  This sort of accumulation could
dramatically lower the cost of doing space science and open the field to
far more researchers.  In addition, many important space science projects
requiring very large structures are impossible without a space station.

 Well, I'll get off my high horse.  Bye.