From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:57:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.24909
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <JMC.92Jul25123947@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes...
>My opinion is that the physicists are mistaken about the space
>station, imagining they could get some of the money saved by the
>cancellation.
> 
>The reason for the space station is only marginally science and
>even more marginally prestige.  The space station is a start on
>human expansion into the solar system.  That is what generates
>the public support for it.  It may not be the best design, but
>it's the only design we have, and the scientist opposition has
>made matters worse, not better.

I think that you completely misunderstand the stand that "physicists"
have taken with regard to the Space Station.  First of all, I know of 
nobody who seriously expects an increased physics budget if the Space
Station goes belly up.

Secondly, you have exactly stated, in the paragraph above, the precise
reason that the APS and other societies have come out "against" the
Space Station.  Technically, I don't think they have ever suggested
that it should not be built.  Rather, they complain that the supposed
"scientific" motivation is largely just political hype and that the
Space Station should be judged not on the basis of its (neglible) scientific 
utility but rather for its value as a vehicle for exploration.

I personally take it very seriously when the politicians try to 
coopt the prestige of the scientific community by trying to make
claims about the scientific benefits of projects they want to fund
when in fact the scientific community is highly unified in stating
that the project is *not* a good scientific project.  

I think that it would be wonderful if we can build some kind of permanently
manned space station.  But I feel that the scientific community has an
obligation to the rest of society to offer objective evaluations of 
public expenditures which are touted as scientific programs. 

And we clearly have a self-interest in preserving our hard-earned reputation
(what little is left) as objective speakers of truth on matters scientific.
If we sit back and allow NASA to claim that SSF is worth doing because 
of the tremendous scientific gains it will bring, then when those gains
fail to materialize we will be held responsible, rightly so, for 
the waste of valuable public funds.

If we sell SSF from the beginning for the right reasons then people will 
not be lead to believe in fairy tales which will never become reality.
How many biologists really think that work aboard SSF will lead to a 
cure for cancer as at least one Senator has been touting lately?


-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics