Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!mikegull
From: mikegull@athena.mit.edu (Michael S. Gull)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Astro-1: Limited success and nearly complete failure?
Message-ID: <1990Dec14.051754.13929@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 90 05:17:54 GMT
References: <9012131304.AA10293@fngate.fnal.gov>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 16


	But whose fault is that?  NASA's, as you suggest?  Congress, who awards
the funding?  The public, for not being interested in true astronomical 
missions, instead of the PR antics of sending up various non-astronauts?
The media, for not covering "uninteresting", "standard" shuttle missions?
Case in point: Neither the Baltimore nor the Washington local TV stations carried
anything to do with Astro, even though two of the instruments were local...
	Astro was designed for multiple flights, and should be used again.
The question is: Which is worth more in terms of science: Using Astro and
observing 139 targets out of 200+ planned? Or doing the usual sattelite-ferrying?
Or launching a sattelite?
	Personally, I believe that having the shuttle around is more of a 
benefit than its detractors would make us believe.  For the first time, we can
actually repair sattelites in space, easily.

							Mike