🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct28.183409.1621@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer, aws@iti.org
writes:
>In article <82350@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick
Chester) writes:
>
>>=                    STATEMENT BY SENATOR AL GORE
>>=                     Goddard Space Flight Center
>>=                       Monday, October 19, 1992
>
>>Gore butters up spaceflight enthusiasts, flem at eleven.
>
>Actually, Gore is buttering up Shuttle enthusiasts. In the first part of
>his speech he talks about reducing the cost to orbit but when you get to
>where he plans to spend the money, it's all for Shuttle. There will be
>no money for cutting costs but plenty of pork.
>
>>= I'm talking from first-hand experience.  As Chairman of the Senate
>>= subcommittee that writes NASA's authorization bill, I have battled
>>= every year with the Administration on priorities in aerospace.
>
>>What is his REAL record? Anyone? Back to our sound bite.
>
>Not good. Gore was at the forfront of people working to protect Truly
>when he was fired. His efforts on his sucommittee shows that he simply
>doesn't care about space very much (asside from Mission to Planet Earth.
>
>>Maybe NASA's budget should be increased a bit more. At least cut the
pork from
>>all of their projects.
>
>From Gore's statements and actions one must conclude that he opposes
'better,
>cheaper, faster' and therefore won't increase budget or reduce pork.
>
>>=      Right to the point, Dan Quayle and the National Space Council
>>= have failed to act decisively on the issue of developing a new rocket
>>= program.  The blame must lie squarely at their feet.
>
>>He may have a point here.
>
>Quayle and the Space Council have shown tremendous leadership on new
>launch programs. SSTO for example, wouldn't have happened without the
>personal interest of VP Quayle.
>
>Gore doesn't have a point here.
>
>>=      As proposed by the Space Council, the U.S has been actively
>>= attempting to develop not one, not two, but three -- yes, three new,
>>= costly, and technically complex orbital launch systems:  
>
>First, Gore shows here that he simply doesn't understand science or
>engineering all that well. If he did he would know that the best way
>to cut costs is to fund several efforts.
>
>Second, all together I agree that NLS is a bad idea we could develop
>ALL these ideas for about 15% of NASA's budget. Given that this is
>the sort of research NASA is chartered to do, it hardly seems costly.
>
>>= Plane, and the Single Stage Rocket Technology program, which still
>>= has no price tag.
>
>>Allen, could you enlighten everybody to the Delta Clipper's price,
please?
>
>DC-Y should cost $2 to $4 billion with another billion or so needed
beyond
>that to take to market. Over four years it is hard to see why Gore
>could possibly consider this costly.
>
>>= even given the fact that the Space Plane and the Single Stage
>>= Technology program may provide significant benefits only in the
>>= long-term future.
>
>>I don't know about the NSP, but DC-X is going to be test-flown in a few
months.
>>Guess long-term to Gore is anything longer than 4 years.
>
>NASP is a long term research effort. It's a pity that Gore considers long
>term research a bad idea.
>
>SSRT is a moderate risk high payoff project which, if it works, will
>reduce costs by an order of magnitude during a Clinton administration.
>
>>=      The findings of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
>>= Space Program, the so-called "Augustine Committee", offer a good road
>>= map.  
>
>Which is very strange. The number one recommendation of the Advisory
>Committee was that a Heavy Lift Vehicle (which he opposed above)
>should be the highest priority for NASA.
>
>>My main bitch about waiting for manned exploration is that we've *been*
waiting
>>for nearly 20 yrs to start. At least let us return to the Moon, dammit.
>
>Any you will continue to wait under Clinton.
>
>If you loved NASA under Truly, your going to love the next 4 years.
>
>   Allen

I am a Clinton supporter and will continue to be a Clinton supporter
because
I believe he is the only candidate to have a clue about the nature of
macroeconomics, the state of the health care system, the necessity of
welfare and education reform, and a variety of other issues. Allen
disagrees,
and we have been engaged in debate in alt.politics.clinton. However, on
this
issue I must agree with him (don't get all mushy on me Allen :-)  ). This
statement by Gore shows a misconception of the needs and goals of the
space program. I differ with Senator Gore on several points:

1.) SEI is the type of mission which NASA should be doing, providing the
kind
of technical challenges, scientific challenges, and excitement which NASA
is in desperate need of. I contend that, given a less
micromanaged/interfering
approach by NASA and Congress, this program could be done cheaper than the
stated estimates. I also contend that the benefits will far outweigh any
cost estimates over the life-cycle of the program. This is the type of
project
which built our technical dominance in the first place. It is high-time we
returned to our roots.

2.) NASP is more than the development of a launch system, it is a
state-of-the-
art hypersonic flight research program which will yield benefits to many
other
aerospace programs. Benefits are already being derived in material
sciences,
high-speed computation, fluid dynamics, heating analysis, propulsion,
.....
If no vehicle is ever derived, these advances will be worth the effort
and cost.

3.) SSTO provides this country the opportunity to corner the commercial
launch market by having a vehicle which is fully recoverable, needs less
hardware and manpower infrastructure to process the vehicle for launch,
and which has much simpler operational processing requirements. Enough
said.

4.) The space station program is in dire need of a heavy lift capability.
We had
one (Saturn V) and discarded it due to lack of foresight. NLS may have
its problems,
but a simple upgrade of our Titan and Delta rockets is an insufficient
replacement.
We need a flexible launch system which can be adapted to unforeseen
changes in
launch requirements, which takes advantage of advances in light weight
materials,
advanced propulsion, and other modern technologies. Our international
competitors
are building new launch systems which will eventually outstrip our
abilities to
compete by the simple use of upgrades.

Unlike Allen, I am not making my voting decision based on this one issue
when
there are several other equally pressing issues for which the Clinton/Gore
campaign has presented superior proposals (Allen will disagree here but
that's life). However, I feel strongly that Senator Gore's statement is
misinformed.
Therefore, I have written a lengthy letter to Senator Gore through the
Little
Rock campaign heaquarters explaining the economic, scientific, and
engineering
realities of the situation in the space community. I, and others, have
invited him
to talk to us who are working down in the trenches. I strongly believe
that Senator
Gore's position is the result of
consultations with clueless science policy advisors and upper-level NASA
administrators who have been out of the
engineering and science loop for so long that they have become
incompetant to
evaluate the technical and scientific needs of NASA. I recieved an
encouraging
preliminary response this morning and I am awaiting more information.
Anyone
who would like to provide some factual input from their own
experiences can send it to me by e-mail. I believe that Senator Gore's
position
can be swayed if enough evidence is presented.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson