From: seds%cspar.dnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.005327.22999@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
> 
>I'm directing followups to talk.politics.space.
> 
>In article <9207251440.AA15431@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
> 
>>[Note: the following is not an endorsement of any party or candidate.]
> 
>What he said.
> 
>>-Bill Clinton on America's Space Program
> 
>>I think Henry chose about the most negative possible interpretation. 
> 
>I thought Henry was right on target. I also agree that it is the mort
>negative interpretation.

Read Al Gore's Book on the environment. It is a page right out of the 
discredited Club of Rome school of thought. 

>>I've
>>heard (unofficially and third hand) that the NASA folks aren't unduly 
>>concerned about the space platforms of either of the major candidates.
> 
>NASA as a burecracy will indeed do fine whoever is in power. The middle
>mamagers who are now running scared under Goldin would like a Clinton
>administration.
> 

According to the NASA middle level folks that I talk to, they are very
worried about Clinton/Gore. Gore only supported space when it helped folks
in Tennessee. We have the useless boondoggle of the extra test stands at
U of Tennesse Tullahoma that after they were constructed, could not be used
due to their placement too close to other bulidings. Look for him to support
COMET and NLS since UT Tullahoma gets contracts on those efforts.

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

ditto. Faster cheaper better is making inroads at NASA. Lets hope that 
the procurment reforms at least get through if Clinton is elected.

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

It is interesting that Lunar Resource Mapper was specifically mentioned 
in some of the stuff that I have read as being an example of a project to
be cut. 

>>There are several indications in the proposal that some of the military
>>space funding would be shifted to the civilian space program, which ought
>>to be beneficial to the civilian program.
> 
>Except that the funding won't be transfered.

Right again. Look at the proposed transfer of funds from space station. None
of it goes to unmanned exploration. It all goes to Veterans and quote "other
science projects"

>Add to all this the fact that by law Al Gore will be the head of the
>Space Council and will be the point person on space policy. Except
>for Mission to Planet Earth Gore has shown almost NO interest in space.
>I don't expect him to support the human expansion into space in any
>way.

This is too weird Allan I agree with you completely. :-)

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

> 
>   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?"                               |
>+----------------------272 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


PS there was an Article in the Brevard County Florida newspaper talking about
the ressurection of the  Saturn F1A engine. Well Rockwell says now that they
can put the engines out the door for 12 to 13 million per unit, after start up
costs. Put that in your pipe and smoke it NLS and SSTO. A family of 
Vehicles built around that powerplant and STME upper stages would completly 
satisfy ALL NLS requirements as well as those of Returning us to the Moon.
A Saturn with five F1A engines and Five STME's in the second stage with and
STME in the third stage would raise the delivered payload to Lunar Orbit by
25,000 pounds. The baseline Saturn was 100,000 pounds to Lunar orbit. 

Revive the Saturn Five!!!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1035 sci.space:10692