From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [talk.politics.space] Jerry Brown's position paper on space
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:39:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rum25INNj5i
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
X-Original-Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
X-Original-Date: 6 Apr 92 13:03:12 GMT

Archive-name: auto/talk.politics.space/Jerry-Brown-s-position-paper-on-space

I ran across an FTP site with a number of documents from the Brown cmapaign,
including an entire position paper on the space program.  (It and many other
documents are available through anonymous ftp at milton.u.washington.edu in
the directory /public/JerryBrown).  Here's what he has to say:

----------

Space & Science RoundTable
Category 11,  Topic 13
Message 15        Tue Mar 03, 1992
T.TELENKO [Trent]            at 07:53 EST
 
   The following is from the Jerry Pournelle-RT and is the official Space
Policy position of the Jerry Brown For President campaign.

 Jerry Pournelle RT
 Category 6,  Topic 3
 Message 17        Sat Feb 29, 1992
 BROWN.92 [800-426-1112]      at 02:16 EST

 Draft statement from the Brown for President Campaign

 POSITION ON SPACE PROGRAM

 The U.S. space program should be in the forefront of government
  programs in pushing the envelope of technology.  Projects
  supported by the space program should represent a balanced mix
  of manned and unmanned exploration, with an accent on increasing
  scientific knowledge.

 Toward that end, we support extension of the Magellan program
  for exploration of Venus, and the initiation of projects to
  explore Saturn and the comet rendezvous mission.  We also
  support returning to the moon for construction of a permanent
  moon base which can be used as a jumping off point for manned
  missions to Mars.

 We also support the concept of multinational space exploration,
  and welcome partnerships with all nations willing to contribute
  to mankind's next great adventure.

 However, the current rush to fund the Freedom space station
  needs to be reevaluated.  The project has already cost $6
  billion in spite of the fact that even its final format has not
  yet been determined, and no actual modules have been
  constructed.  14 major scientific organizations, including the
  American Physical Society, American Chemical Society and
  American Geophysical Union have voiced their disapproval for the
  project, as they feel the space station will divert too many
  scarce resources away from scientific endeavors.

 The NASA bureaucracy was born of the cold war and the military
  establishment.  In the wake of the Challenger disaster, the
  Rogers Commission reported that NASA was a "good old boy"
  bureaucracy, answerable to no one, not even the President.  In
  December, 1990, the Augustine Commission reported that, of 10
  major areas of recommendations in the Rogers report, only one
  had been implemented.  A member of that commission looked back a
  year later, and reported that still nothing had changed.

 NASA is fueled by huge, make-work projects for the aerospace
  industry.  Each shuttle launch costs $400 million.  Currently,
  it costs the U.S. $6,000 per pound to launch satellites into
  orbit; Soviet boosters accomplish the same thing for $200 per
  pound.  NASA spent over $3 billion to construct shuttle launch
  facilities in Vandenberg Air Force Base, only to find out that
  they could not be used due to weather problems.

 The Freedom space station is so large, it would require 25 fully
  loaded shuttle missions just to get all of the parts into space.
  Maintenance requirements would be so high that, once it was half
  constructed, maintenance alone would require more EVAs
  (extra-vehicular activities) per year than have been
  accomplished to date in the history of manned space flight.
  And, to what end?  Of the six major scientific areas slated for
  experimentation on the space station, five have already been
  curtailed or eliminated due to lack of power generating
  capability aboard the craft.

 NASA is pushing for the Freedom space station and the space
  shuttle to the exclusion of all other projects.  Their proposed
  fiscal 1993 budget would call for the shut down of the Magellan
  project, the first time NASA has ever terminated a project with
  an active, functioning satellite already in position.  The
  budget would eliminate or severely curtail all non-manned deep
  space exploration programs.

 On the other hand, the entire Magellan project to date,
  including development, launch and operation of a satellite which
  has greatly expanded our knowledge of Venus, has cost only $600
  million.  The Voyager project, still active, which produced the
  spectacular fly-bys of the outer planets, has not yet hit the
  billion dollar mark since its inception.  Science and
  exploration do not have to cost billions.  The same money
  earmarked for the space station could fund ALL of the other
  initiatives in space.

 Even the Bush-Quayle Space Initiative pointed out the need to
  balance manned and non-manned exploration.  NASA is not
  responsive to even the requirements of the current
  administration.

 The emphasis on big money projects has ignored some smaller,
  less visible priorities.  For example, the U.S. only has one
  operating weather satellite in orbit.  The satellite currently
  scheduled to be launched to join it has some significant
  technical problems, but will be launched anyway to meet the
  critical need for weather information.

 Under a Brown Administration, we could accomplish the following:

 > Reorganize and redefine the National Aeronautics and Space
  Administration to be more creative, innovative and cost
  effective.

 > Set a national goal of returning to the moon, constructing a
  permanent moon base, and opening the moon for commercial
  exploration in mining and manufacturing.

 > Provide a balanced program of manned and unmanned space
  exploration, including support for projects for deep space
  exploration such as the Saturn launch and the comet rendezvous.

 > Develop a cheap, high powered booster rocket to deliver
  satellites into orbit inexpensively.

 > Establish a priority on rebuilding the network of domestic
  weather satellites.

 > Promote international cooperation in both manned and
  non-manned space explorations, including a manned mission to
  Mars using the moon base as a jump off point.


------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------

Compared to what we've seen from Clinton et al., this is a remarkably 
well-thought out statement!  I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he
said.  I was left with two questions, though:

	1) He makes the claim that (ex-)Soviet boosters are ~30 times 
	more efficient than US boosters in terms of price per pound
	($6,000/lb for the US, $200/lb for the CIS).  Anybody know
	how accurate these figures are?  They seem perhaps a little
	inflated to me...

	2) He also says that if Magellan is shut down as proposed in
	the FY93 budget request, it would be the first time NASA has
	shut down a functioning satellite of its type.  What was the
	status of the Viking orbiters/landers when their funding ran
	out in the the eraly 1980s?

Yeah, I'm nit-picking, but I just wanted to get some points clear. :-)

BTW: The Brown campaign has e-mail via Compuserve!  The address is:
	75300.3105@compuserve.com  
I sent them a message late last week, and haven't gotten a reply yet, but
that's understandable  - it took weeks to get a reply from the Clinton
campaign!  I've also seen another address listed: brown92@igc.org but I
haven't tried that one yet.

(NOTE: Don't perceive any of my posts as being an endorsement of any one
candidate or party, because they're not - I haven't made my mind up right
now.  And when I do, I'm sure my endorsement will carry somewhat less weight
than that of the Council Bluffs (Iowa) _Daily_Nonpareil_ :-)


-- 
Jeff Foust                        Junior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   	        	    jeff@seismo.gps.caltech.edu
  "American catfish are not good at earthquake predicting.  They're only good
    for eating." - Yasuo Baba, Tokyo Metropolitan Marine Experiment Station