From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: "What's New" July-24-1992
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:03:10 GMT
	<24909@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <JMC.92Jul26124213@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<MATT.92Jul26223915@physics2.berkeley.edu> <9985@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu's message of 27 Jul 92 21:19:41 GMT

In article <9985@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

   In article <MATT.92Jul26223915@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
   >In article <JMC.92Jul26124213@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

   >> Did I misread, or did the physicists oppose the Space Station, rather
   >> than just say that, considered as science, it wasn't worth the money?

   >My impression is that physicists are essentially unanimous in thinking
   >that the space station is worthless when considered as a scientific
   >project.  There is no such consensus on whether or not it should be
   >built, however---that depends on the individual's political views ....

   Pretty accurate summary of the APS position.  Once it became clear that 
   microgravity work was compromised by vibration, interest fell, and then 
   I think those plans were dropped from the station altogether in the 
   latest review of the project. 

   But this thread is starting to miss a key point in the report from "What's 
   News" concerning opposition to the current space station plan:  there 
   were *75* _space_ scientists who wrote a letter in opposition. 

   Many of those interested in exploring the universe are opposed to the 
   latest plan for the space station because it will probably kill off 
   major projects and delay others.  I am told that it already has affected 
   some of the space science projects funded by NASA, but that is all 
   third-hand from me.  Any of you sci.space folks out there?

There is a huge argument over whether there is a correlation between 
manned and umanned space program funding or an anti-correlation.
Basically a zero-sum total budget vs manned space funding drags
the unmanned program with it. It is probably not a decidable issue.
On the space science projects issue, my personal impression is that
there were too many proposed new starts coming at the same time,
for "big" projects ($billion class missions) - arguably they could
never have all been funded without a massive increase in the overall
NASA budget...

My personal opinion is that Space Station Fred is a nasty compromise
and a butchered design, partly congress's fault, partly NASA top level
management's fault, but that a space station of that class should be
built as an engineering project, and that to abandon the design now
would be probably cripple the space program given the US political
climate. Follow-ups should maybe go to talk.politics.space?

To bring in some sci.phys relevance, I'd argue that it is time to get
some engineering experience in space and to develop experience with
large structures and extended duration missions - as necessary
preparation for future scientific and other space activities... 


|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
|steinly@helios.ucsc.edu|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|