From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, Space
Keywords: space station, shuttle, cash
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:20:57 GMT

jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes:


>I think something is missing from the discussion of the
>Democratic position on space.

>The one thing no one has noticed, is that both SSF and
>the Shuttle are PORK BARREL projects.  NO president, Dem
>or GOP or Lib or Green, would dump these projects outright.

The libertarians apparently live to dump pork barrel projects
outright.

>Both projects represent thousands of jobs and billions of
>dollars for the economies of the communities that host 
>NASA centers.  To suggest that a president would outright
>dump such an economic boon is absurd.

They're doing the same thing to the DOD right now and it's
hurting a lot of communities.

>The space station depends on the Shuttle for its very 
>existence. 

Not according to Allen Sherzer. He has a couple dozen or
so alternative launch and supply vehicles.

>The advocation of alternative launch systems does not 
>preclude the perpetuation of the Shuttle program, and 
>may even save us a little money on the way.

Actually it does, because the people in the Shuttle program
(or more precisely funding the shuttle program) look dumber
and more venal the more successful the alternative vehicle
is.

>Am i the
>only one who questioned why we were spending half a billion
>bucks to save a privately owned communications satellite?

Yup. I didn't say anything about it. I'm just sweetness and
light about everything, and never flame anyone. Steve, pass
the thorazine, would you?

>Am i the only one who wonders if it is worth half a billion
>bucks to study whether wasps will reproduce in space?

They're not spending half a billion! Shuttle flights only
cost $ 400 million. That's a _large_ difference from half
a billion. Almost one hundred million dollars! Stop inflating
NASA costs like that!

>I happen to think the space station is a pretty good idea, 
>but i have no illusions about its purpose.  It is primarily
>to be build to keep corporations in business.  When in orbit,
>it will be used to develop technologies that basically support
>the businesses with the occasional spin-off to the public.

>But if someone were to tell me that the SSF monies were to be
>taken and given to smaller unmanned projects like a mission to
>Pluto, Cassini, Magellan's survival, COBE, etc... then i would
>have no hesitation.  The knowledge return per dollar is much
>higher for those smaller missions....

What about SSRT as well? Would you mind seeing shuttle diverted
into SSRT and NASP and Baby Saturn, Jr.?

>John McDonald
>begin 664 signature.uu
>M:F]H;E\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7VUC9&]N86QD"@E!
>M<G1I<W1S(%!R;W9O:V4@06QI96YS"E]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?
>M+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+0IC96YT97(@(" @("!F;W(@(" @("!E=78@
>2(" @("!A<W1R;W!H>7-I8W,*

Hmmph. Looks like I'll have to decode it.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--