Message-ID: <81@clyde.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Aug-83 14:13:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.81
Posted: Thu Aug  4 14:13:33 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Aug-83 17:31:28 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs Whippany NJ
Lines: 3

The ussr has a space station. At this moment it is in orbit and operation and
there is a crew on it.
They have had a series of these for several years.

Message-ID: <386@ihlts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 18:50:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlts.386
Posted: Thu Mar  8 18:50:42 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 07:55:42 EST
References: <2578@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 63

Quoting from rabbit!wolit:

>>	In fact, we've done just fine without people in space at all.
>>	Examples:  the Pioneer, Viking, Explorer, Ranger, etc., series.

But from where did the technology that enabled us to accomplish these things
come?  The manned space program.  From where did the big push that has
brought computing (and many other sciences) up to their present stage of
sophistication?  The manned space program.  Pioneer and Viking would never
have happened had we not pushed on to the moon.  The earlier examples, all
together, provided us with a small fraction of the data we gathered with a
single moon landing mission.  Future activities in planetary exploration, not
to mention our technology in general, depend upon a healthy manned space
program.

>>	Building a space station would SLOW DOWN the advance of space
>>	science.  Every penny spent on a station, is a penny NOT spent on
>>	exploration . . .

This type of fallacious thinking is all too common.  Manned space exploration
draws money to unmanned space science and produces money for unmanned space
missions.  Unmanned space science budgets have always followed manned space
science budgets, up AND down (except before there was any manned space
exploration).

>>	Scientists are not the ones behind a station.

Bull.

>>	Considering that the Reagan administration is working hard to push
>>	high school biology texts back into the 19th century, their
>>	commitment to a space station in the name of "science" is hard to
>>	swallow.

That's the most illogical statement I've heard in a long time.  What the hell
do biology texts have to do with space stations?  Secondly, what makes you
think that Reagan's motives are even relevant here?  Manned space exploration
has the potential to be the greatest pacifying influence on mankind ever seen
because of its ability to unite us as one people on a tiny planet and as a
statement about the human spirit.  To forever deny people the opportunity
to boldly go where no human has gone before is to lower them to the level
of the cockroaches.

>>	If the commercial potential of space is so great, let the
>>	companies that will benefit from a station fund it. . . .
>>	We didn't pay for all the communication satellites that are up there
>>	making money, why should we suddenly be getting into the space
>>	business now?

Every time you pay for a telephone call, you help pay for a communication
satellite, whether your call goes by one or not.  That is how capitalism
works.  You have benefitted many times over from the manned space program,
whether you realize this or not.  Manned space exploration overall is a
money MAKING venture, producing in a decade several times what was spent
on it.

If space exploration is left entirely to private companies, then
there will be very little basic space science research going on.  Apparently
you are against this research.  Would you prefer space to be controlled by
individual private interests?
--
Roger Noe		AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe

Message-ID: <2350@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 23:50:02 EST
Article-I.D.: allegra.2350
Posted: Thu Mar  8 23:50:02 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Mar-84 08:56:08 EST
References: <2578@rabbit.UUCP> <386@ihlts.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 36

This appears to be the classic "men in space" vs "machines in space"
debate that has gone on since the earliest days of the space program.
There are merits to the arguments on both sides, but each has some
fallacies as well.

There is no doubt that specific, well defined, purely scientific
programs can be carried out more cheaply with unmanned spacecraft. 
However, as beneficial as they might be to science, unmanned programs
simply don't get the media hype that much less "worthwhile" (to the
scientists) manned projects get.  It is this public support, sometimes
bordering on the romantic, that the scientists must rely on to support
their work also.

I wish the machine-in-space camp would stop complaining about the
relative amounts of money being allocated for the shuttle and the space
station. Their time would be better spent figuring out ways to get as
much scientific mileage out of them as possible, and in presenting the
united front to the legislature that's needed in increasing the overall
NASA budget, unmanned missions included. This is why I suggest that
letters to your representatives endorse support for BOTH manned and
unmanned missions.

Yes, science was almost an afterthought in the Apollo program, but lunar
science is still far better off than if the Apollo program never
existed.  Without Apollo, there probably wouldn't have been a Ranger,
Surveyor or Lunar Orbiter.  Them's the political facts.

On the other side, I'd like to see more accomodations made by the manned
space flight people to the scientists, who are after all doing much
with their limited resources. I cringe when I see all that empty space
in the cargo bay that could have been used by scientific payloads of
opportunity (bigger than GAS cans).  Scientific groups are chronically
poor, and applying the same rates to them as well as to commercial
customers just isn't fair.

Phil

Message-ID: <3625@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 11:41:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3625
Posted: Mon Mar 12 11:41:07 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 11:41:07 EST
References: <2578@rabbit.UUCP>, <386@ihlts.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 37

*

   The recent controversy over the early funding of a space station
is rather disturbing, and reflects a basic split in the space-science
community.  Ever since the end of the Apollo program, funding for
space exploration has been decreasing in real terms (although this
trend may recently have been halted).  As the money source dried up,
two groups of extremists formed from the above-mentioned community,
and started what some of them seem to regard as a fight to the death
(the death of the other fellow's program).
   The two belligerents share a very similar belief: that given a 
choice of manned vs. unmanned space exploration, only one is necessary,
and the other is a complete waste of time.  Back in the glory days, they 
were able to tolerate the other group's wastage; now, however, they
are in direct competition with the wasters for budget money. Every penny
the wasters get is a penny drained away from absolutely vital scientific
endeavours. This cannot be tolerated! The wasters must be hunted down, and 
eliminated to the last man! There's no time to lose! etc.
   Of course, one group beleives in unmanned exploration, the other in
manned. The battle lines have been drawn, both sides have convincing
arguments on their side, and the emotion of the arguments are drawing
many unwary passers-by into the fray. The booty will be next year's NASA
budget, and the more people on your side, the more likely it is that you'll
be able to convince the administration of your point of view (that's
dmcrcy for you).

   Have the people involved never heard of the (Roman?) precept, 
"Divide and Conquer"? This sort of infighting could easily diminish
the space program as a whole. Personally, I think that both aspects
of space exploration are quite necessary, and that each contributes to the
advance of the other. The distinction between the two is an artificial
one; after all, the two disciplines share vast amounts of technology,
they're studying the same phenomena in many cases, and are designed
by the same groups of people. Myself, I'd rather switch than fight...

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

Message-ID: <3626@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 11:55:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3626
Posted: Mon Mar 12 11:55:08 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 11:55:08 EST
References: <2578@rabbit.UUCP> <386@ihlts.UUCP>, <2350@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

*

re: Cringing over wasted shuttle payload space

   Hmm. I agree, it'd be a shame for the shuttle to go up with less than a 
full load, considering how much money it costs to launch the thing.
However, it's possible for the thing to look half-empty, and yet be loaded
to capacity. The shuttle has both mass and volume constraints
on its payload; perhaps on the mission you refer to, they were carrying
something relatively small and dense, leaving empty room in the cargo bay,
even though the mass allowance had been exhausted. In that case, they
could have carried up extra payload, providing that it had the density
of styrofoam...
...or, perhaps not. Many scientific payloads contain perishable components,
and so can't be launched at a moment's notice (or even 6 months' notice).
If there are no small payloads available a year or so in advance,
when the manifests are being finalized, the shuttle may end up taking off
even though it has space (and mass allowance) to spare. Perhaps it'll be
on missions like that, that non-NASA personnel will fly as supercargo,
as "Payloads of opportunity".

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

Message-ID: <3392@lanl-a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Mar-84 19:46:46 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl-a.3392
Posted: Tue Mar 13 19:46:46 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 19:47:50 EST
References: <152@hocse.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 13

Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable?  It really isn't.
There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep space objects (even
satellite killers only operate in LEO).  Constructing such a weapon system 
could only have one purpose (to attack the space station) and would
be politically difficult.  Finally, the construction of a manned space station 
would make it difficult to attack (thick radiation and meteor shielding,
and perhaps some magnetic field generators to push large spacebourne objects
from a distance).  All these things make a space station MUCH less vulnerable
than many important earthbound targets.

Besides all this -- attacking the space station would be considered an act of
war,  something that would be foolish given the present (and probably future)
state of the world.

Message-ID: <105@ihnp3.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 22:04:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnp3.105
Posted: Wed Mar 14 22:04:03 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 07:22:41 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 34


Pardon by flames, but...

Jan,

If you want to commit suicide, please leave me and the rest of the
species out of it.  Your opposition to the space station, (and by
strong inference manned spaceflight in general), is not only foolish
and short-sighted, but is also extremely dangerous.  In fact, given
a strict analysis of an individual's duty to the species, it is downright
IMMORAL.  

What gives nuclear weapons such a terrible prospect in our minds?
Surely it is not the simple magnitude of their destructiveness; rather
it is their genocidal properties which drives our horror of them.  
Laying aside any discussions of multilateral nuclear disarmament, which
given the current nature of the beast seems unlikely (please, no
counterflames on this one!) the fact that all of our eggs are in one basket
should be food for thought.  Any movement to raise the number of baskets
to greater than one should be cause for celebration rather than fomenting
dour grumblings about who's pocket is going to be picked this time.  I am
not suggesting that the space station will lead immediately to the 
preservation of the species, only that it is a logical first step that
must be taken NOW, while we still have the surplus resources to support it.

I agree with a previous commenter on the net; if U.S. law allowed for
direct contribution to specific agencies and programs, I would not 
hesitate to give additional money out of my own pocket to support 
manned space flight, and planetary programs as well, by the way.

(Somebody got a fire extinguisher?  My fingers are a little toasty...)

					Douglas H. Price
					..!ihnp4!ihnp3!dhp

Message-ID: <3646@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 14:44:16 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3646
Posted: Thu Mar 15 14:44:16 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 14:44:16 EST
References: <152@hocse.UUCP>, <3392@lanl-a.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 30

*

In reference to the objection that space stations aren't >really< vulnerable:
Hoo, boy, are you wrong! You say that satellite killers work only in LEO;
not true, for them to work in higher orbits they need only be put on a 
larger booster. Besides which, the planned station is going to be in LEO
anyhow, making your argument pointless. You say that the thick radiation 
shielding and electromagnetic meteor-replellors would make a station well-
nigh invulnerable; those ideas are pure science-fiction, and don't
represent the state of the art of space station manufacture at all
well. A station would be built in a manner similar to the way Skylab
was, with the thinnest possible structurally sound walls, to save weight,
and with all kinds of necessary equipment (such as solar arrays and
heat radiators) hanging off the sides. This would be very vulnerable
to almost any sort of attack; thrown projrctiles, fragmentation bombs,
laser or beam weapons, etc. Thick shielding will come with later
stations, perhaps those hollowed out of asteroids. At present, however, we
don't have any asteroids to work with.
Lastly, you say that destroying a space station would be an act of war,
and so wouldn't occur in these unstable times, for fear of setting
off The Big One. Friend, the only reason the military would want to be
on a space station, is so that they could use it during The Big One!
If the Enemy were planning a war, and the US military had a satellite
base, the Enemy wouldn't quail at shooting the station down, any more
than they'd quail at shooting up a battleship or an air force base.
How then would the fact of shooting up the station being an act of war,
deter the Enemy from attacking the station during a war? Sheesh!

-Kieran A. Carroll
...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll

Message-ID: <17648@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Mar-84 18:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.17648
Posted: Sat Mar 17 18:05:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 01:05:23 EST
Lines: 33

From:  Robert Elton Maas 

    Date: 13 Mar 84 16:46:46-PST (Tue)
    From:ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg@Ucb-Vax
    Why would the pentagon regard a space station as vulnerable?  It
    really isn't. There aren't weapon systems designed to attack deep
    space objects (even satellite killers only operate in LEO).
The initial space statin WOULD be in LEO, so I don't understand the
relevance between your statement about deep space objects and the
point you're making. Remember, we're not talking about L-5 colonies
here, or even geosynchronous orbit. We're talking about a station that
is built by people on STS flights and regularily serviced by STS.
Remember STS is restricted to LEO, a few hundred miles from the
surface of the Earth.

The other points you raise about the space station being physically
more robust, are valid.  Many methods of knocking out ICBMs depend on
the very thin skin of the ICBM, so thin if you drop a wrench from a
hundred feet above it and it hits the ICBM just right the ICBM
promptly gets a fuel leak followed by explosion. A high speed
projectile (bullet, meteor, fragment of anything at orbigal speeds) or
small explosive would surely kill an ICBM (if the ICBM didn't explode
directly, it'd burn up on reenty due to the pucture in its skin). By
comparison, a solid metal space-station shell might puncture from such
a projectile but not undergo an explosion, and since it doesn't plan
to reenter the atmosphere the puncture would not be fatal.

As for heavy radiation shielding, I think that applies only to later
space stations/colonies such as L-5 et al based on massive amounts of
lunar materials available at low cost. The first space station would
be much more robust than an ICBM, but still somewhat vulnerable if
somebody really wanted to commit an act of war. (At last that's my
personal assessment.)

Message-ID: <184@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 21:44:49 EST
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.184
Posted: Mon Mar 19 21:44:49 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 06:29:17 EST
References: <3626@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 16

This is actually on empty shuttle space.  There are three unmentioned
reasons for 'wasted' space in the bay.

	o The shuttle has severe center of gravity restraints.  The
	  heavy stuff has to go in the back and if it's not heavy
	  enough you can't put anything in the front.

	o The shuttle is not yet capable of it's full nominal weight
	  carrying capacity - 65,000 lb.  It won't be for a few years
	  yet.

	o The IUS, built to fail by the Air Force, has caused cancellation
	  of two shuttle flights and caused another to go up almost
	  empty.  The damage is continuing by the way.  The most recent
	  IUS's delived to NASA failed their ground tests.  If you want
	  a turkey, give the project to the military.

Message-ID: <428@t4test.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 13:36:28 EST
Article-I.D.: t4test.428
Posted: Fri Mar 30 13:36:28 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 01:43:05 EST
References: <105@ihnp3.UUCP>
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 21

>	What gives nuclear weapons such a terrible prospect in our minds?
>	Surely it is not the simple magnitude of their destructiveness; rather
>	it is their genocidal properties which drives our horror of them.  

	This properly belongs in net.politics, but here goes anyway.
I heartily disagree with the above statement. Although the prospect of
genocide certainly is factor, the main thing that makes nuclear weapons
so terrible is that for the first time non-soldiers can be killed with
no chance of getting out of the destructive area. In WWII, we Americans
were able to sit in our nice safe homes thousands of miles from the
destruction. Only the soldiers had to die. Even in Europe, you could send
your children out to the countryside where their chance of survival was good.
With nuclear weapons, there is no safe place, and even if there was, there
will not be enough warning for you to get there. THAT is what makes nuclear
weapons so scary.

					Murray at Intel @ t4test

P.S. If you are going to flame, do it by mail, this is supposed to be a space
newsgroup, not poitics.