From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Space position
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:25:25 GMT

In article <9207261215.AA17967@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>-I would hate to see the just beginning effort to fix NASA get derailed.

>Who on Earth would want to replace Goldin, when he's had such a promising
>start? 

Not everybody think it is a promising start. None other than Senator Albert
Gore thought things where fine under Truly and objected strongly to his
firing.

>There are plenty of examples of Cabinet members being kept on through
>a change in Administration, if they're doing well. (And, in case you didn't
>know, Goldin is actually a Democrat, though that doesn't get talked about
>much. :-) I would guess that Goldin is likely to stay, whoever is elected.

I hope so. We will need to push for it should Clinton be elected. But without
support from the administration, Goldin's abilities are very limited. I 
don't expect, for example, to see support for Moon/Mars which Goldin is
likely to push for.

>->Note that the platform isn't too different from the current trends in
>->Administration and Congress - keep the manned program going, support...

>-Except for two important differences:

>-1. They want to keep the Shuttle which currently consumes 1/3 of the
>-NASA budget.

>*Everybody* wants to keep the Shuttle for the time being, though nobody's
>particularly happy about it. 

I don't know about Clinton but I doubt Gore sees any pressing need to
replace the Shuttle.

>-2. clinton pretty much comes out and says there will be no effort put
>-inot Moon/Mars.

>As opposed to the current thriving SEI program? :-) 

There is a BIG difference between an administration pushing the program
and looking for ways to fund it and one willing to let it die a quiet
death.

>Seriously, what
>candidate with a reasonable chance of election has promised more, *and*
>given some clue as to where the money would come from? 

It's not a question of money but one of will. We currently spend all we need
to for Moon/Mars.

>(It's my own opinion that starting actual manned Mars exploration / lunar
>colonization right now, with current hardware, would be a mistake...

Why? IMHO most of what we will need we won't develop until we get there.
The Russians have the best EVA gloves available. They have them because
they needeed them. 

Demand is the best way to drive inovation.

>-Except that the funding won't be transfered.

>Just after I posted that, I read somewhere that the current Administration
>has expressed interest in the same thing. If both major parties are behind
>it, it might happen.

but will funding be transfered? The odds are better it will under Bush
since he has a better track record. The only person on the other ticket
with a track record has shown he just doesn't care one way or the other.

>So why doncha write letters *before* the election to any candidates who you
>feel are less than fully supportive of space exploration, urging them to
>change their positions? :-)

Agreed.

>Personally, I hope space is a nonissue in the upcoming election. With such
>a close similarity of platform positions, that might turn out to be the case.

I doubt space will be an issue. But that isn't a good thing. The platforms
may be similar (although I suspect we will see important differences when
the Republican platform comes out) but the track records backing them up
are miles apart.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+