🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1988Apr11.020249.8269@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Most of the rest of the letter column is criticism of Van Allen's latest
>epistle.  "Thanks to men with the Proxmire/Van Allen viewpoint, we have
>no coherent space program today..."

James van Allen is hardily in the same category as Proxmire.  The
problem comes from the political and social motivations for going into
space.  There is a tendency to believe that "going into space"
constitutes "science" like "space science" is naively a part of
"astronomy."

Dr. van Allen and many others are the people responsible for keeping the
SCIENCE in space and not just the political hype of sending people up.
I would not blame van Allen that there is no coherent space policy, 
I can see few coherent policies anywhere in Government (economic
trade, research, education, even the military ;-).  Perhaps we need two
(correction three) space programs: military, civilian political (for
those who need firsts) and civilian science. 8-) [I know some would
argue we have this already.]

Added note: mail is getting especially bad.  Please add a return address
to your signatures otherwise, don't expect replies.  Also I want to try
and assemble a set of most asked questions (things we will see again and
again, like "why not use expended Shuttle tanks for something?")
I will post and we can iterate (when I get some time).

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene