🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Mar22.054649.15822@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:
 
> >NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the
> >American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from
> >Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common.
> 
> Didn't used to be.  Airlines got started back when airflight was also
> risky and uncommon.

   True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with
the express intent of making a profit.  Space flight has taken considerably
larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from
public funds.  Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space,
but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies 
desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads 
and recovery facilities) on their own.  


> Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).

   Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL.  If he's not a professional scientist,
who is?  There are career astronauts who are not primarily research
scientists, but we send up people who are as mission specialists, as we
did with Taylor and others.  Surely this fact hasn't escaped your attention?

 
> It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my
> comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite
> clumsy attempts in that direction.  As for the Soviets, they're working
> on it.  ...

   Come on, Henry! Give it a rest!!  You clearly don't care much for NASA
and the US space program, but you're letting your dogma get the best of
you.  "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring"
could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling.  The US has career
astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half
decades, and we continue to do so.  Perhaps we don't do it at the rate
that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening?  And that 
we're not working on it?  There are sure a lot of people working hard 
on space projects that would be surprised to find that their jobs and
work aren't real.

   You also should have noticed that the US government is not in the
business of making money, so it's no surprise that monies don't flow
rapidly into the national treasury as a result of the space program.
Many launches are "reimbursable" though, meaning that the government
is paid back for the services that are provided.  We've got quite a
few commercial space vehicles in operation.  They are mainly 
communication systems, but they are there and producing revenue.
   

  [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program]
 
> Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
> "Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
> one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."

   If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might
have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch, to the
point that many of them initially did not notice the explosion.  It
WAS a big deal to them, even though it might not have been a big deal
to you.  There were many people excited by the idea of "just plain
folks" going into space.  


   Henry, it is clear that you are well versed in space activities, and 
also that you're clearly not happy with the way the US is doing things.
Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do 
anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying.  Lighten 
up a little, and try to see things in a more balanced light.  The USSR
may have a much higher launch rate, and may be committing more resources
to space exploration and operations than is the US, but that is no reason
to denigrate everything that is done here.  Most of us applaud Soviet 
accomplishments, and hope that they will move our leaders to increase our 
rate of space activity.  

   The US has a political system in which decisions are made by consensus.
Various needs are argued and weighed in public debate, albeit imperfectly 
at times.  As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could,
and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with.  The 
Soviets don't have that problem (yet), and their leadership can set 
priorities and direct efforts to accomplish them with far less in the way 
of dissent.  If they have an edge because of the differences in political 
systems, we just have to chalk that up to part of the price of democracy.  

   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for 
space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You 
seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to 
promote space exploration?

   

   Just for the record:  No, I am NOT employed by NASA.
-- 

						   Steve
					(the certified flying fanatic)
					    steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov