HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Followup-To:  talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:03:05 GMT

In article <pfritsch.716428834@skid.ps.uci.edu> pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle) writes:
>I still don't see any actual *facts* to back up your claims. Just
>political rhetoric. Try and cite some quotes from speeches, or past
>voting recoreds, or some other evidence. And take  the discussion off
>sci.space and sci.astro.. it doesn't really belong there.

	Talk about politics germane to space funding
	doesn't belong on talk.politics.space?

		Very clever, Paul!

	Clinton and Gore promise everyone the world,
	mumble a line or two about how they're going to pull it all off,
	and you can claim that we don't have any evidence!

	So what do you want, Paul?  A smoking veto pen?

	Clinton says he's going to:
	1)	cut taxes
	2)	balance the budget
	3)	reduce the federal deficit
	4)	institute national health care
	5)	start a jobs and worker retraining package

	Where's he going to get the money from???

		Social Security Cuts???
		More Defense Cuts???
		Double Digit Inflation???

	Open your eyes and see the light, Paul.

		Something's got to give somewhere.
And one of those somethings will be NASA and the space program.


					This public service announcement
					was brought to you by,

						Radio Free Lafayette

-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:37:01 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu writes:

>In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour this summer, Clinton 
>clearly stated his support for both the Space Station and the Superconducting
>Super Collider programs. 

He has an unfair advantage; he can be for all the megaprojects
and leave all the people against the megaprojects in the situation
of trying to explain why they aren't anti-science...

--
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
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:03:32 GMT
 <Sep.13.21.10.38.1992.5531@pilot.njin.net>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <Sep.13.21.10.38.1992.5531@pilot.njin.net>
macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko) writes:

> Clinton is a
> firm believer in the benefits of R&D.  He believes that technological
> advancement is the way to grow our economy into further prosperity.
> His vice-presidential running mate Al Gore has sponsored a number of
> signifigant bills dealing with national investment in new technologies.

What about basic science? How will NSF fare?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:23:57 GMT

In article <9c7y=x=@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>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.  

I would like to see some justification for this. 

>From this money, I expect about $1G - $1.5G to be spent on this Personnel
>Launch System.  

Not built the NASA way (which you are defending). Besides, how is PLS
going to return all that stuff from orbit?

This also begs the question of why do we insist on spending billions
over 20 years when we can do the same thing for an order of magnitude
less and less than half the time?

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

Agreed. Note that this is exactly the sort of thing NASA should be
building but cannot now do even if the money was available.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------223 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:45:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

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? :-)

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:14:05 GMT
 <1992Sep10.223322.5189@techbook.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep10.223322.5189@techbook.com>
szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

> Fred is still being funded one year at a time.  This year it
> took some significant hits. The probability of Fred being 
> completed, while rising, is still only around 50%, so the
> market needs to be adjusted by that factor (to start with).

Yes, as a space scientist, I know this feeling all too well.

Fred   ;-)/2
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:02:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.151003.21751@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are
>already 30 years old one more time. 

1. The designs in question all have safety factors of 2.0; nothing
   is being stretched anywhere.
2. The existing Titan and Delta are very different from what they
   where 30 years ago. 30 years of continuous improvement will do
   that.

>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. 

Except that we can't do the research to develop this technology because
people like you have made a virtue out of wasting money on the existing
systems.

    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?"                               |
+----------------------222 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 13 Sep 92 11:23 PDT
Subject: Re: Article (part) on Gore's support fo
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep9.080230.25102@news.duc.a:754024183:cdp:1600000011:000:332
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Sep 13 11:23:00 1992


Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

szabo@techbook.com writes:

> Do you seriously think Al Gore is going to promote Reagan's SSF at
> the expense of EOS and his fiber optic network?

Al Gore's priorities might be different from those of Dan Quayle,
but he has supported SSF and worked to reduce the cost and risk of
EOS.

Mark W. Goodman

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:38:08 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Next year Congress will likely have 150 new members, elected to cut the
>budget (that's what all the pols out here are running on). We will have 
>a new President, and Al Gore in charge of the Space Council.  They will be
>looking for something visible, and symbolic of the Reagan/Bush years,
>to cut. Do you seriously think Al Gore is going to promote Reagan's SSF at
>the expense of EOS and his fiber optic network?

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.  My SSF contractor 
contacts believe that Freedom is too far along to be cut now and congress seems
to believe that last year was the defining vote.

>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.

>>
>>First of all, they charge less than that for Titan IV (the figure I
>>have seen is $225 million. In addition, the Titan V doesn't use the
>>Centaur upper stage (which is included in the $225 million).

>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.
-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Keywords: Shuttle
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:23:50 GMT

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 hope we will get Delta Clipper, it is the only bright spot on the
horizion. But if we do get it I hope you realize what an inditement
it will be against the buisness as usual attitude at NASA.

  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:1187 alt.politics.bush:4945 alt.politics.clinton:5202
From: pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:03:07 GMT

I still don't see any actual *facts* to back up your claims. Just
political rhetoric. Try and cite some quotes from speeches, or past
voting recoreds, or some other evidence. And take  the discussion off
sci.space and sci.astro.. it doesn't really belong there.

--

Paul Fritschle                                         pfritsch@skid.PS.UCI.EDU
                             Cthulhu '92
                        'The Stars are Right!'
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: "9296::begley"@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley)
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Lockheed Engineering (Houston, TX)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:40:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.155531.16395@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard
M) writes:
>		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

Yes, you are just making up assertions without posting any facts
or sources to back your offhanded claims.

>>	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
>

Thank you for your campaign promises, although I doubt we can hold
you accountable.  Your entire article flies in the face of the
Clinton/Gore space policy platform.  And please refrain from the
"dyed in the wool Democrat will kill space" vein.  If you compare
Kennedy/Johnson space funding versus Nixon/Ford funding, the tables
would be turned.  Judge each man by their own actions AND the circum-
stances of the times.

If Bush was such an ardent space supporter, where was his veto when
congress zeroed his SEI program?  Face it, the space program has
a priority level proportional to NASA's paltry share of the federal
budget, regardless of who is president.
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:50:03 GMT
 <1992Sep14.030332.17554@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Sep14.044323.1@news.duc.auburn.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep14.044323.1@news.duc.auburn.edu>
ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu writes:

> > What about basic science? How will NSF fare?
> 
> In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour this summer, Clinton 
> clearly stated his support for both the Space Station and the 
> Superconducting Super Collider programs. 

OK, but these are both large projects, and because of their size, are
as much jobs projects as they are scientific programs. What about the
more modest, individual investigator projects, the province of the
National Science Foundation (NSF)? Historically, small projects have
been very cost-effective: surprisingly many Nobel prizes were done with
equipment that fit on a table top, and a GOOD IDEA (e.g. transistors,
e- microscopy, nuclear fission...).

Besides, SSF is a NASA project, and SSC is DOE, although both these
agencies also do excellent small, basic science. Since you can't
anticipate in advance where science will go, it makes sense to look
after the small projects, too.

Fred
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Article (part) on Gore's support fo
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:12:28 GMT

In article <1600000011@igc.apc.org>, Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 
> Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org
> 
> szabo@techbook.com writes:
> 
>> Do you seriously think Al Gore is going to promote Reagan's SSF at
>> the expense of EOS and his fiber optic network?
> 
> Al Gore's priorities might be different from those of Dan Quayle,
> but he has supported SSF and worked to reduce the cost and risk of
> EOS.
> 
> Mark W. Goodman
> 

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). Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville brings in about $2 billion annually into
Alabama's economy. In the last House of Representatives vote on funding
for SSF, all of Alabama's representatives (who happen to be Democrats) 
voted against the amendment to kill funding for Freedom. 

California, Texas and Florida have about a third of the 270 electoral 
votes needed to win the election (or re-election), and since space
technology and other high tech industries are so important to the economies
of those states, a Clnton/Gore administration would only be hurting its
chances for re-election if they didn't support space exploration and
technology.  
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald G. Marfoe                    |"Mirabile visu. Mirabilia/Et itur ad astra
InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu    |... Suus cuique mos. Suum cuique.../
          ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu   |Memento, terrigena./Memento, vita brevis."
          ggmar@hoshi.colorado.edu  |- "Afer Ventus", Enya, "Shepherd Moons"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.134018.15195@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> "9296::begley"@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley) writes:
>Your entire article flies in the face of the
>Clinton/Gore space policy platform. 

Clinton and Gore are in the position to promise a lot of things to a lot
of people.  But do they intend to deliver?  To find out, you have to look
at voting records and long-term positions.  While I have no doubt EOS will
are well under a Gore National Space Council, I have my doubts about SSF,
NASP, SDI, and SSRT (Delta Clipper).  Support for these projects has been
very slight and very recent.

The Bush administration has been VERY supportive of space operations and
space research.  The NASA budget has increased 25% -- few discretionary 
budgets have seen any increase at all.  It was Bush who proposed returnin
to the moon and on to Mars, and Bush brought back the National Space Council.
He did these things not to win votes but because he believes our country's
future is best served by the research, development, and exploration that an
active space program yields.

Bush's actions speak louder than his words.  Space was not an issue in the
1988 campaign, yet within months of reaching office Bush set as official
policy this country's goal to "expand human prescence beyond Earth orbit
and into the solar system."  He appointed Dan Quayle -- also a vocal space
proponent -- to head the Space Council, and set forth in concrete terms the
goals of SEI.  His budget director, Richard Darman, has lobbied extensively
for larger NASA budgets and for SSF.  Bush and Quayle have also worked to
reduce the friction between NASA and private space ventures, and have 
increased international/commercial cooperation.

>If Bush was such an ardent space supporter, where was his veto when
>congress zeroed his SEI program? 

Just last year Bush threatened to veto the whole HUD/IA budget if it
didn't include full funding for SSF, the first segment of SEI.  That
is the main reason we have a space station program today.

If you don't like Bush for other reasons, then by all means vote against
him for those reasons.  But don't try to slant the time-proven positions
of the current administration on space.  It just doesn't work.

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
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:09:27 GMT

In article <1600000010@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:

>You would be hard pressed to find a stronger or more knowledgable
>supporter in Congress of research and technology development than
>Al Gore.

Regarding space, his voting record doesn't justify this statement.

>The key to the future of NASA lies with its new Administrator, not
>with the next administration.  

To some degree. However, he also needs the support of the Space Council
(under Gore) and the president. Bush has increased NASA funding by 25%.

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

Their published position papers hardly differ however, their voting
records do. Gore has shown that outside EOS he simply doesn't care
about space.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------222 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups:  talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:32:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.010305.28786@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

Is it just me, or are the names below wrong?  Seems to me it
is George Bush (a.k.a. The Environmental, Education, Morality, Space and you
name it President) who is going around the country passing out favors
(increased farm subsidies, fighter plane contracts, etc., etc.) and who
-- hey, what a surprise -- now offers a 1% across the board tax cut.  Of
course, when pressed on the issue of how we can afford it (especially since
the Administration is on record late this spring for saying a tax
cut is fiscal irresponsibility), Bush wavers, coughs, sputters, reverses
himself, asks for a different question, asks if he can be excused from
the table, etc., etc.  I mean, are you *really* still believing this guy?
Please!  Double talk is a lessen learned at a young age.  What happened to you? 

|> 	Clinton and Gore promise everyone the world,
|> 	mumble a line or two about how they're going to pull it all off,
|> 	and you can claim that we don't have any evidence!
 
 read:	Bush and Quayle promise everyone the world,
 	mumble a line or two about how they're going to pull it all off,
 	and you can claim that we don't have any evidence!

|> 	Clinton says he's going to:
|> 	1)	cut taxes
|> 	2)	balance the budget
|> 	3)	reduce the federal deficit
|> 	4)	institute national health care
|> 	5)	start a jobs and worker retraining package

read: 	Bush says he's going to:
 	1)	cut taxes
 	2)	balance the budget
 	3)	reduce the federal deficit
 	4)	institute national health care
 	5)	start a jobs and worker retraining package

... and of course, he has done none.  In fact, he has raised taxes, not even
proposed a balanced budget to Congress, the deficit has gotten larger, 
the health care problem is growing exponentially, and we are in a recession.
Talk about evidence.  Where have you been?

|> 					This public disservice announcement
|> 					was brought to you by,
|> 
|> 						Radio Clueless

-Jeff
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:43:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.030332.17554@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> In article <Sep.13.21.10.38.1992.5531@pilot.njin.net>
> macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko) writes:
> 
>> Clinton is a
>> firm believer in the benefits of R&D.  He believes that technological
>> advancement is the way to grow our economy into further prosperity.
>> His vice-presidential running mate Al Gore has sponsored a number of
>> signifigant bills dealing with national investment in new technologies.
> 
> What about basic science? How will NSF fare?

In an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour this summer, Clinton 
clearly stated his support for both the Space Station and the Superconducting
Super Collider programs. 
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald G. Marfoe                    |"Mirabile visu. Mirabilia/Et itur ad astra
InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu    |... Suus cuique mos. Suum cuique.../
          ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu   |Memento, terrigena./Memento, vita brevis."
          ggmar@hoshi.colorado.edu  |- "Afer Ventus", Enya, "Shepherd Moons"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------