From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 15 Aug 92 07:56 PDT
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV 
Nf-ID: #R:168mm3INNak7@agate.berkeley.edu:216680648:cdp:1469100009:000:3706
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 15 07:56:00 1992


To:    sci.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    Space Station support
Date:  15 Aug 1992

>>>[Freedom has support in Congress]

>>I am not aware of any huge and lasting support.  The House votes have
>>been about 230-180, far from 2-1,

>The past two votes where far closer to 2-1. Either way, this is still a
>sizable majority made even larger when you realize what went into it. The
>Congress rarely changes an appropriation like this after it is reported out
>of committee. In addition, a very powerful member did huge amounts of
>lobbying to make it happen and still failed.

This year's vote was 237-181, and Space Station funding was included in
the committee report, unlike last year.

>To those who say social spending will beat NASA every time, look at these
>votes. Freedom was carved up and $$ given to every constituency in the
>house. It still failed.

>At the level we are talking about allocations tend to be based on clout
>first and need second. NASA has enough clout to get about $15 billion
>every year and it will get it regardless of how it is spent.

>If Mr. Coffman's model was correct, Freedom would have been dead a long
>time ago.

>>and then only because the aerospace
>>industry has already received such a big hit from DoD cuts.

>So?

If the aerospace companies hadn't been hurting, Congress would have
been more willing to cut the Space Station.

The biggest reason Congress hasn't killed the space station is that it
doesn't want to go back on its commitment, both in money and to foreign
partners.  Congress was sold a bill of goods -- an $8 billion cost
estimate for a much more ambitious station -- and is now stuck with it.

>>There is
>>tremendous opposition to the space station, which is based on the
>>essential question: what good is it?

>That is a technical question, not a political one. It's not nearly as
>relevant as you think.

I still haven't seen a good answer.  Of course it's relevant.  That's
the main reason people oppose it (that and having better ideas about
how to spend the money).

>>>Since these will open the space frontier and produce far more tax income,
>>>it seems a good idea.

>>Allen, if you are refering to the Space Station, a Moon Base, or planetary
>>exploration, my reaction is: Come on, give me a break.  If you are
>>refering to investments in near-term space technology (improved ELVs,
>>perhaps SSTO, improved automation and remote control, lightsats, etc.)
>>and R&D on more distant prospects (NASP, etc.), I agree.  Which is it?

>I am refering to the growth which would occure with the development of
>a spacefaring civilization.

In whose lifetime?  Seriously, this is such a remote (in time if not in
probability) that it has at best minimal relevance to current policy
debates.  I'm not convinced that it will ever happen.  If you want to
argue about economic returns from investment in technology, you need to
look at the near-term practical uses of space, and those do not include
people.

For years to come, space exploration must be considered as an activity
for its own sake, not justified by supposed practical benefits.  I have
nothing against that, as long as we're honest.  But then NASA belongs in
the same category as basic research "for its own sake".  It then becomes
very difficult to justify spending more money on the Space Station than
on the entire National Science Foundation.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+