Message-ID: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 14:08:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxp.882
Posted: Wed Oct 31 14:08:26 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Nov-84 07:47:53 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 69

The following is from the American Space Foundation News, a newsletter
put out by a pro-space group that is for the promotion of the
development of space.  


                       SPACE EMERGES AS ELECTION ISSUE

The issue of the future of America's involvement in space has emerged
as part of the Presidential campaign.  President Reagan has maintained
a strong commitment to space - witnessed by his support for the
permanently manned space station - while former Vice President
Mondale, as of press time, was said to be thinking about the issue
(my note: and he is still thinking.)

As stated by Tom Freiling, Director of Campaign for Space, "We
couldn't have come up with a better contrast between a Democrat
candidate who tried to kill the space shuttle ten years ago and a
President who is an absolute space nut."  Similar comments were made
by Spacepac's Scott Pace, who said, "As far as we're concerned, Mr.
Mondale's record is atrocious on space issues."

If Mondale runs true to form, we should not expect much in the way of
support for continued American involvement in space.  After all, this
is the man who has said, "...the [space] shuttle and station is a
project without justification...and I have attempted to stop this
project for the past two years.  Unfortunately, we have not been
successful."  And further, "...[the space shuttle] will be one of the
most wasteful, useless projects ever developed by any federal agency;
or for that matter, by anyone else."

The Republican and Democratic platforms also showed radical
differences on the subject of space as the foundation of America's
future.  Republicans stated, "We encourage the commercial space
transportation industry.  We share President Reagan's vision of the
permanent manned space station within a decade, viewing it as the
first stepping stone toward creating a multibillion dollar private
economy in space."

The Democratic Platform Committee, chaired by Vice Presidential
nominee Ferraro, issued a strong denunciation of the Administration's
Strategic Defense Initiative and a luke-warm reference to civilian
space activities.

ASF Executive Director Fred Whiting testifies before the Democratic
Platform Committee here in Washington, D. C., as well as an ad hoc
group of moderate Republican Senators.  Testimony was also submitted
in writing  to Republican Platform Committee Chairman Rep. Trent Lott
(R-MS).


---------

A final brief note about the ASF.  They are a political action group
interested in promoting the development of space.  There is a $15
membership fee, and they publish a newsletter quarterly.  Their
address is:

American Space Foundation
214 Massachusettes Avenue, N.E.
Suite 420
Washington, D.C.  20002
(202) 546-4474

---------


Walt Pesch
AT&T Technologies
ihnp4!ihuxp!wbpesch

Message-ID: <518@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 09:56:08 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.518
Posted: Thu Nov  1 09:56:08 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Nov-84 06:21:05 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 5

Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration.  Now it's just all become
another wing of the Pentagon.  The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of
military missions.  "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on
a plaque now.

Message-ID: <203@mouton.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 19:19:01 EST
Article-I.D.: mouton.203
Posted: Thu Nov  1 19:19:01 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Nov-84 07:04:44 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 12

Here's one pro-space nut who's voting for Mondale/Ferraro. The manned space
station will be of no use if nobody's likely to be around to use it in four
years. Reagan's "strong support" for this project is highly suspicious in
light of his attitude toward the federal government's role in basic research
and science education.

No, Reagan supports the space station only because its a stepping stone
for him to get his Strategic Defense Initiative.  I want to see commercial
and scientific space development, including the space station, but I
can do without the space program being further raped by the Pentagon.

Phil

Message-ID: <174@hocse.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 09:50:46 EST
Article-I.D.: hocse.174
Posted: Fri Nov  2 09:50:46 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 03:34:12 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 50

CC:         skran, ~l5

Reference: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>, <518@tty3b.UUCP>

Let's set the record straight about NASA becoming
a lackey of the Pentagon.

1)Before the shuttle there were dozens of military
launches every year.

2)The shuttle was sold with  the idea that it would
carry ALL US payloads, and hence reduce costs by re-using
the ships a maximum number of times.

3)This has resulted in more public visibility for military
operations in space.

It is true that the military space budget now exceeds that
of NASA. This is due to both growth in military spending and
drastic cuts at NASA, for which we can thank Mondale & company.
NASA has been STRUGGLING to maintain a civilian space program
while faced with a hostile Congress and a growing Pentagon
effort. Your attitude is a slap in the face to thousands
of dedicated, peace-loving NASA employees and managers.

Now, the Pentagon has moved to back-stab NASA by reneging on
earlier agreements to fly all military payloads on the shuttle.
Instead, they want to build their own unmanned craft. This will
drastically increase shuttle costs.

To add insult to injury, the Pentagon has consistantly opposed the
space station on that grounds that a)it is vulnerable, b)they
might have to pay for it, and c)Reagan has promised that it will
be international, and hence insecure from their point of view.
Essentially the ONLY groups favoring a space station within
the government are NASA, the Dept. of Commerce, and President
himself.

Groups like Campaign for Space and Spacepac are working for
a strong civilian space program. I appeal to all of you:
Join them in this cause! Don't let the hawks and the beancounters
kill the dream!

Dale Skran 
President, North Jersey L5 Society
P.O. Box 674
Holmdel, NJ. 
(to join the L5 local chapter, send your address & 5$ in cash
or stamps to the above address; make checks out to the North
Jersey L5 Society)

Message-ID: <5027@duke.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 16:45:44 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5027
Posted: Sun Nov  4 16:45:44 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 05:48:03 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 18

I *know* I'm referencing the wrong article here, but I lost the
other and thisa has the same title...
As far as NOT supporting the space program because it's become
"Another wing of the DoD" -- do you refuse to use the highways
because military vehicles do?  Dp you oppose MIS computing because
the military can use it to create paychecks?  ... or not want
better train service because military equipment can be shipped on
trains?

I think there is a little non-objective reasoning here...
-- 


			Can you say "classical fallacy?"
			Good! I *knew* you could.

				Charlie Martin
				(...mcnc!duke!crm)

Message-ID: <215@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 16:30:33 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.215
Posted: Mon Nov  5 16:30:33 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:45:08 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP> <203@mouton.UUCP>
Reply-To: brahms@spp2.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 17
Xref: sdcsvax net.politics:5048 net.space:2844
Summary: 

>No, Reagan supports the space station only because its a stepping stone
>for him to get his Strategic Defense Initiative.  I want to see commercial
>and scientific space development, including the space station, but I
>can do without the space program being further raped by the Pentagon.

If it wasn't for the Pentagon, there would be no space program (civilian),
or at least a smaller one than the one that is already to small.

I don't like the Pentagon getting into everything either, but I really
believe the space program is better of because of them than it would be
otherwise.

			-- Brad brahms
			   usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
			   arpa:   Brahms@usc-eclc

[The views expressed above are my own and not those of of my employer.]

Message-ID: <1614@proper.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 03:31:45 EST
Article-I.D.: proper.1614
Posted: Thu Nov  8 03:31:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 03:40:21 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: mikevp@proper.UUCP (mikevp)
Organization: Proper UNIX, San Leandro, CA
Lines: 8
Xref: net.flame:2392 net.politics:2121 net.space:581

In article <> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes:
>Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration.  Now it's just all become
>another wing of the Pentagon.  The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of
>military missions.  "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on
>a plaque now.

"An awful lot of military missions"?  Since when?  The shuttle has, so far,
launched one (1) secret military satellite.  Give us a break!

Message-ID: <626@ames.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 17:43:13 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.626
Posted: Thu Nov  8 17:43:13 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 19:41:43 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP> <203@mouton.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 30


Hum?  Funny, I don't feel like I got slapped.  That's okay, it happens
everyday.

Others have given a pretty good defense on space issues.  I won't repeat them.
First, NASA is not part, and never was part of the DOD.  We are the civlian
space agency, and sometimes we bend over backward to prove it. [I like the
road-defense analogy.]  Second, a lot of people formerly with the DOD do
work for NASA, but I can assure you that I would not be working with NASA
if there were not people like Carl Sagan and their ideal.

I have begun working with Tom Ackermann (one of the five authors of the Nuclear
Winter study).  NASA potentially gives a lot of hope, and a technological
alternative to working with the DOD.  In recent years, our budgets have
been cut heavily.  There is also talk of putting NASA and NIH, USGS, NIH,
and other science-oriented offices into a single Cabinent office ala MITI.
This could be bad for NASA (I am uncertain, too many variables).

As for the candidates: I voted for Mondale/Ferraro [grudgingly].  Mondale
could no more abolish NASA that Reagan could disposed of the DOE (although
he came close).  I am concerned about the future of the country as well
as the world, but with inflation and the cost of living in Si Valley
going up as well as the budget deficit, I have begun considering taking
a position in Japan [perhaps with MITI, or ICOT, or the Japanese space
agency].  Hell! what's the purpose of idealism anyway?

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

Message-ID: <631@ames.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 16:44:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.631
Posted: Fri Nov  9 16:44:33 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 19:42:38 EST
References: <882@ihuxp.UUCP> <518@tty3b.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 29

> Yeah, I used to support NASA and space exploration.  Now it's just all become
> another wing of the Pentagon.  The Space Shuttle is running an awful lot of
> military missions.  "We Came In Peace for All Mankind" is just a saying on
> a plaque now.

You are badly misinformed.  I work on space station in a very minor capacity
and have a little better information.
DOD opposed space station when Reagan was making up his mind.  They will 
avoid using it because it is to be an international facility with attendant
security problems.  

If you read the space station requirements documents that
have come out over the last two years you will see a gradual
receeding of the Pentagon as a user until, at present, it has practically
disappeared.  In the space station request for proposal (the statement of
work for the next two years of space station effort in the U.S.)
there is, I believe, ONE reference to national security.  The reference
states that there MAY be national security users but none are presently
planned.  Also, the space station will probably provide only commercial
level encription as a service, not DOD levels.

If you go to NASA's space station meetings you will hear little
or no discussion of DOD issues anymore, although they were once moderately
prominent.  This is because DOD is not viewed as a major user of space station,
and just as another research outfit when it does use the station.

As for shuttle flights, there is to be ONE dedicated DOD flight this year, out
of six or eight.  That's not and "awful lot" in my vocabulary.