From: 13r43@math.ucrf.edu
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.165627.28185@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dale-bass