HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 13 Sep 92 11:22 PDT
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep13.155531.16395@usl.edu:-1162453801:cdp:1600000010:000:1602
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Sep 13 11:22:00 1992


Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

Gerard Vignes writes:

>        We all know those are empty campaign promises,
>        but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>        hostile to technology and research spending
>        and especially to projects involving
>        space exploration and astronomy.

You may presume this to be true, but you certainly do not _know_
it.  Judging by their statements, precisely the opposite is true.
You would be hard pressed to find a stronger or more knowledgable
supporter in Congress of research and technology development than
Al Gore.

Henry Spencer writes:

>Of particular note is that John Pike reportedly has major input to their
>space positions and is likely to be head of the Space Council staff if
>C/G are elected.  He basically opposes manned spaceflight and does not
>believe that cheaper launch vehicles (e.g. SSTO) are possible.  Or so I
>am told; those who get to vote in this election might wish to investigate
>further if you care about the future of spaceflight.

John Pike has been a big opponent of military space boondoggles
(SDI), but a big supporter of human space exploration.  His skepticism
about cheaper launchers is based not on hostility to the idea but on
history, as one vehicle after another failed to live up to predictions.

The key to the future of NASA lies with its new Administrator, not
with the next administration.  To vote for President in this
election on the basis of space policy issues is silly, since the
candidates hardly differ.  To urge people to vote on that basis is
irresponsible and dishonest.

Mark W. Goodman

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:21:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.020949.12286@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
>until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.

we could probobally make it last until 2012 or so. At that time, and
only then unless radical changes are made, will the funds be available
to build the replacement the government way. Add another fifteen years
to actually build it and we are looking at 35 years.

I'm getting on in years and for me that 35 years just might be
forever.

>No word on where a Shuttle replacement might come from, or how it
>would be funded.

Exactly.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette)
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:36:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.015201.368@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

|> 	Senator Gore is not running for President.
|> 	Bill Clinton is.
|> 
|> 	The vice president rarely has any important duties
|> 	and is unlikely to influence national priorities.

|> 							Gerard Vignes

Gee, right.  And Dan Quayle has had nothing to do with the Bush
space policy.  Sorry to ask the same question again, but where have
you been the last 4 years?
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:29:02 GMT

In article <BuDtxp.425@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>ESA has also done studies of an Ariane Transfer Vehicle to do logistics for
>Freedom.  It has two advantages I see over either of the above suggestions.
>First, its launched on a vehicle that, while still vaporware, is looking to be
>done one time and inexpensive to launch.  Second, if ESA does the resupply, we
>don't have to pay anything.   

So we have yet another option.

I don't care which one we use so long as it is the cheapest.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1167 sci.space:12665
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Keywords: Shuttle
Date: 11 Sep 1992 02:09:49 GMT
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity

First, kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) wrote:

>>NASA intends to use only the Shuttle for resupply ONLY until something 
>>better comes along.  

Then, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) replied:

>As it currently stands Shuttle and Freedom together spend all the money
>which could go toward a Shuttle replacement. NASA therefore intends
>to use the Shuttle forever.

Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.

No word on where a Shuttle replacement might come from, or how it
would be funded.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Article (part) on Gore's support fo
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:14:33 GMT

matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.051228.1@news.duc.auburn.edu> ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu writes:
>>
>>Clinton and Gore will support the completion of Space Station Freedom as 
>>long as they want support from their fellow Southern Democrats. They are
>>not so dumb that they'll risk losing the South, where there are three
>>NASA Centers (four, if you include Texas' Johnson Space Center).

>Eh?  By this do you mean that Texas is not really in the South, or that 
>JSC isn't really a NASA Center?  Or, perhaps, that Clinton can't possibly
>hope to win Texas?

I was a little confused by this too, but after a summer in Texas, it makes
sense.  They aren't "southerners" - they're _Texans_.  (This of course must
be said in a drawl with a cowboy hat on.)
-- 
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when 
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to 
                           miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:55:31 GMT

		Democrats Will Cut Space Funding

	There are no set goals for such cuts that I know of,
	but if Clinton intends to fulfill at least a fraction of his agenda
	(and I am absolutely certain that he does)
	then he is going to need some "painless" method
	to cut government spending.

	Now defense cuts are obvious,
	but the current administration has already begun that process.
	Clinton is not a roll-over-and-die type,
	in spite of his draft record,
	so he would be leery of making much more drastic cuts.

	This leaves a few juicy programs to go after:
	(1) social security
	(2) medicare, medicade, etc.
	(3) public housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.
	(4) research funding for science and technology

	Now I would suspect that Clinton
	is a wise enough politician to avoid (1).

	He wants national health care,
	so cutting (2) is just a numbers game for the immediate future
	and probably another entitlement nightmare in the long run.

	For (3), he wants to reform welfare
	and replace it with a jobs-creation/worker-training program
	which would almost certainly be either a ludicrous joke
	or far more expensive than social-spending at present.
	My guess is that he would try to make it work
	until the costs became obvious, and then quickly back down.
	No net savings here.

	This leaves (4), and while you may argue
	that the money he would save with cuts in this area is minimal
	(in comparison with social security, defense, and medicare)
	remember that he wants to cut the deficit and lower taxes.
	To even attempt this, he would need to make
	every possible cut in areas not vital to his agenda.

	If Clinton is elected, I can promise you that there will
	be major cuts in technology research and space funding.

						Gerard Vignes

-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.182350.8882@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <py6y41p@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>
>>I, personally, believe a Delta Clipper, HL-20, or NASP-derived vehicle will
>>be funded very shortly after PMC (well, probably EMCC).
>
>How? All the money which could be used will be spent on Freedom and
>Shuttle.

I'm thinking of the Shuttle + Shuttle payloads budget as an operations
budget and what is now the Freedom budget as a development budget.  As
the destination of the Shuttle changes from free-flight to SSF, the cost
impact will not be drastic.  It's mainly a change of destination.  Most
of the $2 billion we spend of SSF R&D will be available for other pro-
jects.

From this money, I expect about $1G - $1.5G to be spent on this Personnel
Launch System.  The remaining $500M will probably be spent on an OMV,
better spacesuits, and some type of free-flyer.

There are two main assumptions in this model:

1) Freedom support costs will not greatly exceed current Shuttle + payload
   costs.  I expect and increase of a few $100M, but way less than a billion.

2) The NASA budget will remain steady at about $15 billion per year.

Actually, there's a third assumption:

3) Another loss of vehicle will not significantly alter annual costs but 
   instead result in fewer free-flying payloads.

The money will be tight, but it will be there.  But I don't see a Shuttle
replacement vehicle funded in earnest from the current NASA budget until
after EMCC.

Note: If Delta Clipper actually works, it's a whole new ballgame.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.174512.20512@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <py6y41p@rpi.edu>, kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>
>>I, personally, believe a Delta Clipper, HL-20, or NASP-derived vehicle will
>>be funded very shortly after PMC (well, probably EMCC).
>
>Aurora-derived? :-)

Let's see, we have a stealth recce, a Mach 5 spyplane, and now a secret
2STO.  Hmmmmm.  Has anyone checked on Nick's asteroids lately?  Maybe they
are already starting to "disappear."  :)

And we wondered why Halley's comet wasn't as bright as it should be!

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:02:12
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: Mark Goodman's message of 13 Sep 92 11:22 PDT

In article <1600000010@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>The key to the future of NASA lies with its new Administrator, not
>with the next administration.

Has Clinton said whether he would keep Goldin as administrator?  I
believe Goldin is a Democrat, so that should help his chances...

>To vote for President in this
>election on the basis of space policy issues is silly, since the
>candidates hardly differ.

Well, on Shuttle, Station, and EOS that may be true, but two possibly
significant differences are:

1) Bush supports SDIO, Clinton would kill it.

Even space activists who are opposed to SDI should be concerned
because of the number of innovative concepts which have been
introduced by SDIO -- the Delta Clipper, Clementine, Timberwind, etc.
If these projects could be transferred into a civilian agency (not
necessarily NASA -- in fact, preferably not NASA), then this might be
less of a problem, but I haven't heard anything about this from the
Clinton camp.

2) Bush supports SEI, Clinton opposes it.

OK, granted, Bush's support has been more rhetoric than substance,
and the funding allocated to SEI has been marginal, but, at least
Griffin's Office of Exploration seems to have some promise...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:11:11 GMT

In article <BuHoBL.58I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>Actually, I believe Clinton has said that he supports Freedom and SEI.  You 
>can of course take that with a grain of salt if you wish.

Quite a tiny grain.  Few Democrats in Congress support SEI,
and both SSF and SEI are Republican-generated projects. Keep in mind 
also that there are plenty of ways to "support" and "operate" SSF 
while launching only a small fraction of the payload Allen expects.  
eg man-tended mode, cutting back on the experiments, 2 crewmembers
for 180 day shifts, etc.  There are also plenty of excuses Clinton
could use to cancel SSF, eg the next time NASA botches something with the
Shuttle or by appointing a "distinguished panel" that recommends 
scrapping Fred.  Finally, Al Gore and John Pike will be on the space council,
and they have, shall we say, a rather different agenda...

>>However, if Ariane 5 meets its cost targets it will be a great HLV
>>for launching the larger DBS's. 
>
>Hey, weren't you attacking A5 as being to big just a while ago?  Maybe I was
>thinking about someone else.

Yes, I admit it.  They've lately changed their tune -- they are now
designing to commercial specs instead of Hermes, and they are working
on cutting costs to well below that of Ariane 4, which is already the
lowest priced commercial launch service.  If they succeed, they will be very
hard to beat, and 'twould be better to join than fight 'em.

>>The most recent figure I've seen, on an article about the Pluto probes,
>>is $400 million for one Titan IV/Centaur launch.
>
>No, that's the cost for the whole program.

Nope.  The probes cost $200m, and the launches (according to Av
Week) $400m each.  I have to think, though, that is the amortized
rather than the incremental cost, so that beyond what we've already 
tossed to this messy program it's only going to cost taxpayers another $200 
million per launch.  They spent $billions on factories, pads, and the
like that aren't being used much now that the USAF has cut back its
orders -- it was originally going to buy over fifty, now it's down to
twenty-something.  That's why it's an incredibly bad idea to build 
single-customer HLVs.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews)
Subject: Re: Article (part) on Gore's support fo
Reply-To: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NOT!
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:18:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.051228.1@news.duc.auburn.edu> ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu writes:
>
>Clinton and Gore will support the completion of Space Station Freedom as 
>long as they want support from their fellow Southern Democrats. They are
>not so dumb that they'll risk losing the South, where there are three
>NASA Centers (four, if you include Texas' Johnson Space Center).

Eh?  By this do you mean that Texas is not really in the South, or that 
JSC isn't really a NASA Center?  Or, perhaps, that Clinton can't possibly
hope to win Texas?

--
Mike Matthews, Tether Dude    +------------->   matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
"Got the Shuttle on a String"  \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)!
Lockheed-ESC                  |  
Houston, TX                   |          *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD ***
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1176 sci.space:12782
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Keywords: Shuttle
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:10:03 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep11.182105.8394@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.020949.12286@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>>Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
>>until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.
>
>we could probobally make it last until 2012 or so. At that time, and
>only then unless radical changes are made, will the funds be available
>to build the replacement the government way. Add another fifteen years
>to actually build it and we are looking at 35 years.
>
>I'm getting on in years and for me that 35 years just might be
>forever.

So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are
already 30 years old one more time. No thanks. We can count on
general technology advances in the next 12-35 years that will allow
us to build something *better* than those roman candles when we
actually *need* them. You and Nick both will have long been dust
in the wind before the solar system is settled by ice miners and
Martians. They won't appreciate being stuck with Hudson Hornets
when they could have a 300ZX.

Gary

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Prisoners or Hostages?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:51:14 GMT

hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem) writes:


>I have been thinking about the recent release of hundreds of
>Palestinians from Israeli prisons by Rabin's government. The US media
>have portrayed this action as an example of Rabin's goodwill; a positive
>gesture. I ask: why were these people in prison? If they are criminals,
>why are they being released? If they are not criminals, why are they not
>all released?

>I can only suspect that these people are some of the many that Israeli
>law allows to be detained indefinitely without charges. Are they not
>hostages? Are/were they not held for the purpose of suppressing
>opposition to occupation? How can Rabin be praised for doing what he
>ought to do? If he is still using them as bargaining chips, releasing
>them over time as a political gesture, how can Rabin be described as
>worthy of praise?

You are quick to criticize Israel for doing something which is necessary
for its security.  You forget that comparing a secure United States at 
peace to a vulnerable Israel which is in a state of both internal and
external war is a fallacy.  If you want to make comparisons, compare
how Israel acts to how the United States acted during the civil war 
when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and also detained people without 
charges and even imprisoned political opponents who had commited no
violent act.  Even this comparison isn't fair - the United States was
risking, at most, ceccesion - Israel is in jeopardy of the life and limb
of it's people and it's actual existence.  Look at other countries - when
there were riots in Venezuela over price hikes, the government killed 300
people in one week.  In 1984, the government of India killed 300 rebellious
Sikhs in one day.  Neither of these countries were threatened nearly as
much as Israel.  By the standard of democracies facing similar circumstances,
Israel has been more than justified.

>A truly praiseworthy act would be for Rabin to release all such hostages
>immediately and get rid of the law which allows them to be made
>prisoners arbitrarily and without cause. 

As I said above, such laws are distasteful, but neccesary under certain
circumstances.  Anyway, I suspect a good number of those released were
involved in intifada related activity.  Additionally, Rabin cancelled
11 deportation orders which are targetted, not against suspects, but 
against actual terrorists and terror organizers who have seen their 
day in court.  If that isn't a gesture, please tell me what is.

>Brad Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU) 

Ed Shnekendorf.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: A naive question about the law of return
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:38:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.024550.2482136@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.143943.11216@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>>In article <25703@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>>If my ancestors converted to Judaism, does this give me the right to
>>>emigrate to Israel? Is this logical? Why (not)?

>>  I would also like to ask a related question:
>>  If I am one of the children of Israel and my ancestors converted
>> from Judaism 
>> and accepted Islam, does this give me the right to emigrate to Israel? Is
>> this logical?

>"To emigrate" is is not the problem.   It gives you the right to
>steal the native's land, home, horse, and cow; that is in addition to 
>the right of killing him and his children.

Buy land, buy the home, horse, and cow.  Nothing gives you the right
to kill people, not even the word of "god."

>P.S. these issues have been discussed on this newsgroup where none
>of the israel-establishment supporters gave a logical answer.

John, you don't accept logic.  You don't accept reason.  You simply
spew the same hate over and over and over again.  You're a hateful,
spiteful bigot.


Adam
Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast