Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!jumbo!stolfi From: stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al. Summary: Oh, no! There they go again... (~~~Rambling flame~~~) Message-ID: <13294@jumbo.dec.com> Date: 27 Aug 88 14:49:03 GMT References: <1365@eos.UUCP> Reply-To: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle Organization: DEC Systems Research Center, Palo Alto Lines: 113 Adam Brody wrote: > > The following letter is being prepared for mass distribution. > Please make comments and criticisms ... FLAME ON: I think this letter shows pretty well how deep-rooted are the ills afflicting the US space program. It is disheartening and disgusting to see that NASA and the manned space enthusiasts are still trying to dupe congress and the public with the same mumbo-jumbo they used to sell the Shuttle. I had hoped that the Challenger disaster and the wave of anti-NASA sentiment that followed would made them understand that one cannot build a solid space program on a foundation of over-inflated claims, populist cliches, half-truths, and plain lies. I had hoped to see honesty and professionalism replace demagogy and dirty politicking. But no, here they are again, playing the same old game, using the same old tricks, expecting us to believe that there is nothing wrong with their Shuttle and their Space Station that a few billion more won't cure. Sigh... > Millions of jobs have been created by the space program and > trillions of dollars have poured into the economy as a result. > For every dollar invested in the space program, seven dollars > are reinvested in the economy making space the best national > technology catalyst investment the Nation has made. Come on. Every billion dollars that NASA injects into the economy is a billion dollars that was sucked out of that same economy by the IRS. Sure, every dollar that NASA pays to a contractor is later passed on to a sub-contractor, then to a sub-sub-contractor, and so on. So what? That is true also of every dollar paid by Social Security to the unemployed. In fact, *every* dollar that is not burned or buried gets reinvested in the economy, not seven but infinitely many times over. > This country has also benefited from many spinoff technologies which > have improved the lives of millions of people. Recent spinoffs > include a device which improves the vision of individuals with > low-vision eyesight ... How many of these "spinoffs" have gone beyond the prototype stage and actually made it to the market? How many of those spinoffs actually resulted from *space* research (as opposed to generic high-tech research)? How many spinoffs would we get by spending the same amount of money as NSF or NIH grants? > The Soviets have had a continuous manned presence in space since > February 1987 aboard Mir which is their eighth space station since > 1971. They have accumulated over 5000 man-days in space greatly > exceeding our 1800. I would rather see a better justification for the manned space program than "The Russians are doing it". In fact, I would submit that the Russians are doing it mainly because the Americans are doing it... > Last year, the United States launched only eight rockets > (none of them manned) while the Soviet Union launched a > staggering 95. I note that you carefully avoid mentioning how much each country *spent* last year on their space programs, and how they divided the money between manned and unmanned missions. > The space station is required for many reasons including: > investigating the effects of long term exposure to zero-g in > preparation for a manned Mars mission, serving as a staging > area for future missions to Mars and the moon, ... In other words, we must waste billions in pointless manned missions today, to develop the technology needed to waste MORE billions in MORE pointless manned missions tomorrow. > ... producing high grade pharmaceuticals, developing the further > commercial potential of space, ... BUNK!!!! > A manned mission to Mars is a topic which has been under discussion > for many years and has surfaced in the media recently due to Soviet > activites toward this end, namely the launch of probes to Mars. Why do you have to resort to such sleazy propaganda tricks? You know pretty well that the Russian probes have as much to do with their manned program as Voyager had to do with the Shuttle. > NASA's FY89 budget request of $11.488 billion seems very small > when compared to [$300 billion for DoD, $50 billion for Texas > bank bailout,] and other expenditures. Now compare it to, say, the NSF budget... > The total estimated cost of the international space station, > which has risen to $21 billion ... You forgot to say that the cost was a mere $8 billion when NASA sold the idea to Congress. Also, note that $21 billion (or $30 billion, depending on the source) is only the current *estimate* of the cost. Nothing suggests that NASA's cost estimates have become more accurate since they sold the Shuttle ten years ago. FLAME OFF Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi * * * THE DREAM IS ALIVE * * * (so who needs Reality anyway?) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.