From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:56:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <10006@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.235639.2933@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Why is the APS vehemently against SSF?  If we ignore possible
>>     selfish funding considerations, the stated objection is that
>>     it 'is not science'.  Well, there will certainly be science
>>     done on the space station.  So the objection boils down to
>>     'it is too much money for so little science'.
>
>It is not just the APS that opposes the current version of the space station. 
>Opposition comes from scientists involved in the space program (mainly those 
>involved in interplanetary exploration) and from those in other countries 
>as well.  The APS is hardly out there alone with some sort of vendetta, as 
>many have tried to cast this debate. 

     I am sure that you would agree that being alone is not necessary
     to be pursuing a selfish, hypocritical agenda (whether they are in this
     case, or not).  Also, I did not suggest a vendetta, but a rather
     underhanded way of pursuing a funding competition.

     As far as those space scientists opposed, I suggest that it is
     not the purity of science that is the problem, but competition
     for funding.  
     
>The problem is the way NASA is trying to sell this thing.  A good example is 
>the story on CBS news last night, where the SSC and the space station are 
>lumped together in a story about expensive science.  Somewhere it got said 
>that the space station is to be used to explore the universe, but the big 
>pitch is that it is for "science".  In particular, the media cast them both 
>as fighting for the same limited pot of funds.  (I find it interesting that 
>the latest move in Congress would shift funds from the space station to NIH.)

     Here it goes again.  If the problem is just 'the way that NASA is
     trying to sell this thing', then why are they so worked up when they
     don't seem equally irritated by charlatanism that seems to run rampant?
     On the other hand, if the problem is just the media 'casting' the
     problem in a certain light, I still see no need for the APS to 
     get so worked up about another program.  However, I suspect that the
     problem is that the APS perceives the SSF to be a true competitor
     with SSC funding.  All the rest is just misleading obfuscation.

>What I enjoyed, so to speak, was the juxtaposition of film of the SSC site 
>(with that lovely elliptical shaft) with the mockups of "Freedom".  One 
>might get the impression that NASA had a station ready to put in orbit 
>and just needed the cash to put it up there, whereas it is not clear to 
>me that the quoted price even includes the price of launching it.  (Does 
>it?  Is the 30 G$ price tag based on the same analysis as the SSC estimate?)  
>Personally, my suspicions were raised when the thing got named "Freedom" 
>in the first place, but I guess you have to follow the trend set by "Mir".
>
>I would much prefer a SpaceLab-II with a sustainable mission. 

     As would I.  Write your congressman.

                            dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926