| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 306.1 | Forgot political affiliations | VINO::DZIEDZIC | | Wed Jul 01 1987 11:44 | 6 |
| Ignoring the nonsense about SDI, one correction to make is "we need
a president, political affiliation non-important, who will agree
to turn the U.S. space program back into a first-rate organization".
Whether a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent does it is
immaterial, the important issue is that it must be done.
|
| 306.2 | We need a President that will..... | CLT::JOYCE | | Wed Jul 01 1987 13:29 | 17 |
| I agree. I found the previos post to be too much of a "commercial"
for the Democrats. What we need is president who will turn on
Nasa's funding rather than giving just enough to get by.
Let me also note that the Democrats aren't the instant cure for
the space program. I believe that JFK's motives for Apollo were
not exploration-related, but rather cold-war related. I am happy
he did it anyway! Let us also not forget that Jimmy Carter did
not exactly help Nasa. And Walter Mondale? I believe we would
be fighting for the entire space program to stay alive if
he were president.
The fact is that we need a president that will not compromise
the space program, either through limited support, limited funding
and especially -- limited vision.
|
| 306.3 | There was alot of balderdash in .0 wasn't there... | LILAC::MKPROJ | REAGAN::ZORE | Wed Jul 01 1987 13:56 | 13 |
| re: .2
Hear hear! If I remember correctly, the original scientists involved
in the fledgling US space pgm wanted JFK to develop a permanent manned
space station and from it explore the universe. The politicians
didn't like that because it wasn't spectacular enough and because
it appeared that the USSR was well ahead of the US at the time.
It was decided to pursue the "man on the moon" agenda because it
was 1) spectacular & 2) sufficiently far off to allow the US to
catch up to the Soviets. See? Things do go in full circles! The
scientists are now to get their space station.
Rich
|
| 306.4 | | SOFBAS::JOHNSON | Live in a General Products #4 hull. | Tue Sep 15 1987 14:57 | 22 |
|
Hey, hey, now...
.0 had a number of strong points to make. Granted it was a certain
leap of faith from "we need a more intelligent space program" to
"we need a Democrat who will give us a more intelligent space program",
but that single point aside I think the rest of the
article/editorial/whatever makes a good deal of sense.
Its principal points were that 1) The current space program is
rudderless, visionless, improperly supported and strangling what little
support it does have in reels of red tape, and 2) that a respectable
amount of the blame for this falls with Ronald Reagan's administration,
which is continuing to an even greater degree the old game of using
space not for scientific or _efficient_ commercial gain, but as a new
theater of warfare and as a way to keep satisfied all the high-tech
corporations who want their particular Buck Rogers gizmo included, even
if it doesn't, heh heh, have all the bugs quite worked out just yet.
That was a very long and increasingly off-track sentence.
Matt
|
| 306.5 | Candidates to give their space policies | DICKNS::KLAES | All the galaxy's a stage... | Tue Dec 08 1987 23:05 | 39 |
| Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics
Subject: Democratic Presidental candidates vs. space
Posted: 7 Dec 87 20:49:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO DISCUSS SPACE ISSUES
Democratic presidential candidates will explain their positions on
space policy to the House Subcommittee on Space Science and
Applications on Friday, December 18, in Iowa City, Iowa. The all-day
hearings, to be held at the Iowa Memorial Union, will also include
testimony by prominent space scientists. Republican candidates will
be invited to speak at a similar event in New Hampshire sometime in
January.
EDITORIAL COMMENTS: Okay, these are all the facts I have now. We
in the Chicago chapter of the National Space Society are trying to
find out more details; when we do, I'll post them.
I've heard quite a few people express the wish that What To Do In
Space could be made a significant issue in the 1988 campaign. Clearly
somebody on Capitol Hill has had the same thought. If you share these
feelings, you might tip off your local press about this event and tell
them you'd like to see it covered.
There *might* be a chance for represenatives of citizens' groups,
such as the NSS and the Planetary Society, to testify - we don't know
yet. Note that Iowa is the home turf of Dr. James Van Allen, the most
prominent opponent of the elaborate manned spaceflight programs NASA
holds dear.
Bill Higgins
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
|
| 306.6 | Democratic space discussion rescheduled for Feb 5 | DICKNS::KLAES | All the galaxy's a stage... | Wed Dec 16 1987 20:15 | 26 |
| From: HIGGINS@FNALE.BITNET (Bill.Higgins@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:HIGGINS@FNALE.BITNET,
Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Candiates' space forum cancelled
Date: 16 Dec 87 00:14:00 GMT
The House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications hearings
on space policy, which were scheduled for December 18 in Iowa City,
have been postponed. The forum is now scheduled for Friday, February
5. It was to include testimony on space policy by Democratic
presidential candidates, leading space scientists, educators, and
represenatives of the National Space Society and other citizens'
groups. As far as I know, another forum will be held for Republican
candidates in New Hampshire, but information about the date of that
event hasn't reached me.
The HSSSA is a subcommittee of the House Committee on Space,
Science, and Technology. It is chaired by Rep. Bill Nelson (D,
Florida), and its Minority Leader is Rep. Robert S. Walker (R,
Pennsylvania).
Bill Higgins
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
|
| 306.7 | From those who may shape the US future in space | DICKNS::KLAES | All the galaxy's a stage... | Tue Dec 22 1987 13:55 | 76 |
| From: loeb@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Calendar from Morton Thiokol
Date: 21 Dec 87 21:11:40 GMT
Here are the results so far from my survey of Presidential
candidates (Note: Hart was not surveyed does anybody know his
address):
1) George Bush
Our Commitment to leadership in space is symbolic of the role we
seek in the world...
Earlier this year Dr. Sally Ride delivered a report to NASA called
LEADERSHIP AND AMERICA'S FUTURE IN SPACE in which she outlined four
reasonable options for the space program. The first she called
"Mission to Planet Earth."
Such a mission would create a global observation systme in space,
aimed at developing a fundamental understanding of the Earth system,
in order to predict changes that might occur -- either naturally or as
a result of human activity.
NASA should remain the lead agency in exploring the frontiers of
space science and technology -- for developement of a
trans-atmospheric vehicle to construction of a space station. What it
should not be is a freight service for routine commercial payloads.
In the short term, I support construction of the replacement
shuttle; but because Mission to Planet Earth would require the ability
to launch large payloads, it would justify the building of a
heavy-lift launch vehicle -- designed for minimum cost instead of
minimum weight.
Any space based defense will require a deep reduction in the price
of placing cargo in orbit in order to be affordable. Indedd, costs
need to be cut by a factor of 10.
I am committed to a vigorous SDI program. The Soviets have been
working on strategic defenses much longer and harder than we have --
indeed, well before my time at the CIA in the mid-1970s.
Mission to Planet Earth, a strong civilian launching program, and
strategic defense -- these are important immediate goals.
We should make a long-term commitment to manned at unmanned
exploration of the solar system. There is much to be done -- further
exploration of the Moon, a mission to Mars, probes of the outer
planets. These are worthwhile objectives, and they should not be
neglected.
The signing in April [1987] of a five-year agrement wiht the
Soviet Union to cooperate "in the exploration and use of outer space
for peaceful purposes" is a first step in this direction.
-- Remarks made in Huntsville, Alabama
October 20, 1987
2) Haig
Haig only mentions Space related issues in the following two
paragraphs under the heading of SDI.
"I favor SDI because we cannot cede the field of space-bases
defenses to the Soviets, who have been developing such systems for
over two decades. I further support research and testing even
deployment of whatever off-the-shelf technology exists. We should be
under no illusions, however, about the state of that technology, which
is still at an elementary level.
"Because a fully workable space defense umbrella may be 15 to 20
years away, SDI cannot be a substitute for nuclear deterrant. That is
why I have been critical about premature politicization of this issue,
which has caused confusion everywhere -- in the Congress and in the
scientific community, among the public, and especially among our
European allies."
3) Dole acknowledged my request and forwarded my letter to the
appropriate office.
4) No others have responded to date (Including all of the Democrats).
Note that I have refrained from editorializing (with SOME effort)
inserting only the date [1987] in Bush's remarks.
|
| 306.8 | Solid facts required, here! | MERIDN::GERMAIN | | Tue Jan 05 1988 12:58 | 56 |
| .0 is a scream!
Come on - in one sentence, you say that researchers are INDEPENDANT
people who usually take ANY MONEY THEY GET.... The two don't go
together.
I will say this - that I agree with you in spirit. But I do not think
that there is broad public support for the space program - there
are a lot of people like us who believe in it, but most people
are apathetic. What with the stock market crash, and all of the
fiscal uncertainty, there is going to be a lot of noise made for
cutting the budget everywhere it can be cut. Let's face it - most
people don't care WHAT Mars is made of!
So if we are to have the kind of vigorous space exploration we
dream of, we had better come up with some good hard reasons. I agree
with all of the philosophical notions about the benefits of
exploration, and knowledge gathering, and so forth, but, they simply
do not wash with the majority of the public.
Ever listen to Senator John Glenn, when he talks about the space
program? Now, I am not a big admirer of him as a senator, but he
is a prominant man. Usually you get the basic..." Man has an urge
to explore......". Well, crap - that arguement flies about as well
as the shuttle does (right now).
I feel that if you cannot convince the basic, sensible common man
in the street, of your position, perhaps you don't have a position
worth supporting. I agree that Kennedy made use of the space race
because he was at the right place, at the right time, with the right
tool that EVERYBODY supported. People CLAMMORED to spend the money!
They went wild about space, because the Russians were drubbing us,
and they actually felt fear for their lives, and their childrens'
lives, because Kruschev could bomb us from space. NATIONAL pride
was hurt.
But you don't see that happening today - even though the Soviets
are active, ahead, and agressive in space. The big news is the twin
deficits...........
So we need GOOD, SOLID, HARDHEADED, REASONS, for being there. for
spending the money, and (YES! IT MAY MEAN) the lives. I kind of
like the notion of a spacefaring civilization - just as seafaring
civilizations prospered in the past. Perhaps we can expand on that.
I talked with a friend of mine for a couple hours (who also believes
in a strong space program, ut feels like we have no proper goals
to justify it), and tried to decide why certain nations, i the past,
spent the $$$ to explore the globe. It paid off big. What are the
parallels (if any)? They had the advantage of being monarchs, and
could do what they pleased. Is there any lessons to be learned here?
I started a note, lete December, to try and generate a dialogue
about reasons for space exploration - reasons that the public could
embrace. I invite you all to say what you think.
Gregg Germain
|
| 306.9 | Some candidate's views (moved from 384) | DECWIN::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23 | Wed Jan 06 1988 01:03 | 29 |
| <<< LDP::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPACE.NOTE;2 >>>
-< General Space and Space Shuttle Discussions/News >-
================================================================================
Note 384.0 Some candidates views 1 reply
DECWIN::FISHER "Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23" 22 lines 4-JAN-1988 16:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I can't find the note that this really goes with, but maybe
someone can move it to the right place if they find it.
According to Aviation Week the following candidates have expressed
stands on space:
Bush (already mentioned here)
Robertson: Nasa is a "badly mismanaged" agency that should not
be allowed to build a space station or dispose a major budget.
Babitt: Administration policy lacks "clear goals and long-term
orientation". He supports international cooperation "to help manage
[the] increasing costs of space technology and exploration."
Simon: Solor system studies should include comet and asteroid
exploration. He backs the Mars Observer, Magellan (Venus), Galileo
(Jupiter), and Ulysses (solar polar-mostly European since the US
dropped support for its spacecraft several years ago ** pet peeve
**. Thanks, Ron).
Burns
|
| 306.11 | | BOEHM::DENSMORE | get to the verbs | Wed Jan 06 1988 16:15 | 9 |
| I lost my link when putting .10
re.8 I recently saw a news item on a survey of 6-12 year old students
who said they favored a much more active space program, including
a joint USSR-US manned mission to Mars, but they didn't want it
to raise taxes. hence the title of the last reply. do the voters
sound like kids of do the kids sound like voters?
Mike
|
| 306.12 | | CRAIG::YANKES | | Wed Jan 06 1988 19:50 | 10 |
|
My guess would be that the kids are reflecting their parents
view and the constant message of "taxes are bad" that Reagan gives
on nearly every evening news. (Ok, so I'm exagerating a bit, he
did miss one Thursday last August... :-) But seriously, the reason
for this position is that I'm not convinced that students in that age
bracket really understand what the effects are -- both positive and
negative -- of taxes to make an informed choice.
-craig
|
| 306.13 | Gold in them thar Asteroids | MARX::WALSH | | Thu Jan 07 1988 11:54 | 4 |
| Weren't the old explorers looking for GOLD and riches, an easear
way to the East. Well if we can convince the people that there
is gold on Mars will have plenty of exploration. :^)
dan
|
| 306.14 | ;-) | BOEHM::DENSMORE | get to the verbs | Thu Jan 07 1988 12:25 | 5 |
| <reinsert tongue in cheek...>
re .12 Do the parents really understand either?
Mike
|
| 306.15 | a real big ;-) on this one | CRAIG::YANKES | | Thu Jan 07 1988 12:40 | 6 |
|
Re: .14
I doubt it. Reagan got elected.
-c
|
| 306.16 | Dukakis | DECWIN::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23 | Mon Jan 11 1988 16:01 | 7 |
| According to the Nashua Telegraph, Dukakis made a ~low key supporting
statement for the space program in response to a question from the
audience at a Nashua appearance last week. Did any of you ask it?
(Drat...I was going to go, too, but was just too tired that night.
Wish I had heard the exact question and response!)
Burns
|
| 306.17 | | SNDCSL::SMITH | William P.N. (WOOKIE::) Smith | Tue Jan 12 1988 23:55 | 7 |
| Actually, even gold won't do it. Someone has calculated that if you
could transmute lead into gold (in LEO), our current shuttle launch
costs would be unable to make a profit. Not that there aren't more
valuable things we could be doing in space, but asteroid mining
is going to need an infrastructure...
Willie
|
| 306.18 | Bruce Babbitt's views on future space plans | DICKNS::KLAES | The Dreams are still the same. | Wed Jan 27 1988 19:02 | 43 |
| From: lmsprys@athena.mit.edu (Linda M Sprys)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Candidates' Space Position
Summary: Babbitt Pro-Space
Date: 26 Jan 88 00:31:26 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
After the debate among the Democratic candidates on Sunday in
Durham, NH, Babbitt was asked about his ideas on space. His response
was as follows:
1: Support for developing a mix of launch vehicles, avoiding
overreliance on a single vehicle. (a la Challenger)
2: He would like an eventual manned space station. Not clear if
this means cancelling the present NASA concept and starting with a
man-tended version like the ISF or not.
3: Supports the development of a Moonbase.
I found it significant that he did not mention a manned mission to
Mars as a near-term goal. I would like to assume that his support for
these particular aspects of space development reflects a commitment to
avoiding APOLLO-style oneshot missions and indicates a desire to
foster the development of a viable space infrastructure, mostly
because this is the basis of my support for these goals.
Also, I wonder what the net thinks about Reagan's proposed new
policies regarding commercial development of space. THE NEW YORK
TIMES printed the criticism that the policy might amount to little
more than massive subsidies to private enterprise.
Aspects that I remember include:
A limitation of commercial liability.
A requirement that NASA buy launch services from private enterprises.
Contracting out design work.
Too bad he didn't do this seven years ago. Now, it is
questionable whether this policy will survive a change of
administration.
Benjamin Mclemore
lmsprys@athena.mit.edu
|
| 306.19 | Damn the ignorant - full speed ahead into space! | DICKNS::KLAES | The Dreams are still the same. | Wed Jan 27 1988 20:28 | 40 |
| From: kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Candidates comments on space
Date: 25 Jan 88 17:06:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
In article <8801241821.AA09747@angband.s1.gov>,
bruc%r2d2.DECnet@MGHCCC.HARVARD.EDU ("R2D2::BRUC") writes:
> I am curious to know what the candidates are saying about space policy,
> but I've heard very little. However, I was listening to Face the Nation
According to yesterday's San Jose Mercury News, space is a
nonissue. Only Albert Gore (by all accounts, last in the Democratic
lineup) and Alexander Haig (same for the Republicans) have express
policy statements on it. Haig is also the only candidate who has
volunteered to appear before a House subcommittee on space.
The article goes on to point out that this is probably due to a
perceived lack of public interest. Only 47% of the public expressed
any interest in the space program, 42% thought it a waste. The
"hard-core" of space supporters is about 12%. However, the figures
were even worse in 1961, when Kennedy committed us to the moon. Then,
over 60% of the public believed that space was a waste. The high point
of support came after the Challenger disaster, when 62% of the public
believed that NASA funding should be increased.
The upside is that there is no organized consituency *against*
space. As anyone in politics knows, its a lot easier to run a negative
campagin and win than a positive one. In general, the conclusion was
that committments to space exploration have always come out of strong
leadership, something lacking at the moment.
Unfortunately, the space lobbying groups have been largely unable
to turn this trend around, though they have been able to save
individual programs. In the policy area, however, they have had little
effect.
Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com
|
| 306.20 | More Presidential candidates space positions | DICKNS::KLAES | The Dreams are still the same. | Sun Jan 31 1988 17:37 | 44 |
| From: purtill@faline.bellcore.com (Mark Purtill)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Candidates' Space Position
Date: 28 Jan 88 00:29:07 GMT
Organization: NSS
Well, I just got a letter (January 28) from SPACEPAC (asking for
money, of course) that had some info along those lines. However, this
letter was dated December 23, 1987, so this may be a little
out-of-date.
Bush gave a pro-space speech in Huntsville, AL, last fall. "While
no other Republican candidate has yet taken a stronger pro-space
position than Bush, SPACEPAC feels Bush's position is unreasonably
constrained by his concerns for the federal deficit." (That's from the
letter, as are any other quotes I might throw in). As I recall, Bush
was in favor of the "Mission to planet earth" scenario from the Ride report.
At a "recent" Iowa debate, "Both Dukakis and Gephardt calimed to
be favorably inclined toward the space program, but felt that in an
era of tight budgets that priorities should be placed elsewhere."
"SPACEPAC has thus far penetrated the Gore campaign substantially
more than... others. ... Based on positions taken so far, Gore is
clearly more pro-space than any of the other Democratic contender.
However, this could change;" since most of the others haven't said
anything on the issue.
Aside from asking for money, SPACEPAC syas that writing letters to
candidates asking them what they're position is is a good idea as it
gives them the feeling someone cares. Asking questions at "public
forums" (like speaches) is also good. They would like to have copies
of any replies you get, especially if the candidate takes a position
on Space Station. SPACEPAC's address is:
SPACEPAC, 2801 B Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite S, Santa Monica CA 90405
The letter has the addresses of all the presidential candidates;
I'll post it if and only if there is sufficent interest.
The Jan. 4, 1988, issue of Aviation Week also has an article space
issues in the campaign. My impression was that no one had said much,
and those who had were not the front-runners.
|
| 306.21 | Rescheduled Space Science Field Hearings | DICKNS::KLAES | The Dreams are still the same. | Sun Jan 31 1988 17:38 | 33 |
| From: HIGGINS@FNALE.BITNET (Bill.Higgins@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:HIGGINS@FNALE.BITNET,
Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: House Subcommittee hearings: Feb. 5 in Iowa
Date: 28 Jan 88 00:26:00 GMT
SPACE SCIENCE FIELD HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE
The House Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications will be
holding special hearings on Monday, February 1 in New Hampshire and
Friday, February 5, 1988 in Iowa. The Subcommittee, chaired by Bill
Nelson [D-Florida], will hold its Iowa hearings in Iowa City, Iowa, in
the Main Ballroom of the Iowa Memorial Union on the University of Iowa
campus. (This is the district of David R. Nagle (D-Iowa).) At this
time the field hearing is scheduled to have a morning session from
9:30 to 11:30 AM and an afternoon session from 12:30 to 3:30 PM.
There will be four parts to the hearings, panels dealing with
space science, education, history, and finally the space policy views
of the Democratic presidential candidates. As of January 14th,
however, none of the candidates have confirmed their appearance.
Hearings might be broadcast by National Public Radio stations.
These are the Iowa hearings that were originally scheduled for
mid-December, then postponed. If I get information about the New
Hampshire hearings (which presumably include an invitation to
Republican candidates), I'll post it in appropriate places.
Bill Higgins
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
SPAN/HEPnet: 43011::HIGGINS
|
| 306.22 | Paul Simon's space program policy | DICKNS::KLAES | The President of what? | Fri Feb 19 1988 12:38 | 53 |
| From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Paul Simon on NASA and Space Policy -- Official Statement
Date: 18 Feb 88 02:14:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article
The following is out of Democratic Presidential candidate Paul
Simon's official "position book" and was obtained from the Simon
campaign. This statement was written on 11/12/87.
PAUL SIMON ON NASA AND SPACE POLICY
"The 1986 CHALLENGER disaster has forced us to reexamine our
previous directions in civilian space policy. Now that we are
building a replacement Shuttle, we have to make decisions about
America's long-term access to space. We need different launch vehicles
so that we're not caught again in the present situation of not being
able to get into space in a timely fashion.
"Budgets will continue to dominate the space agenda. The Space
Station, for example, will be very costly if we adopt a go-it-alone
attitude. An international effort will reduce costs and ensure that
it will be used only for peaceful ends. We should also pursue joint
U.S.-Soviet research and planetary missions, as well as missions with
other nations, as an alternative to placing weapons in space.
"Our space science efforts have lagged. We should study our solar
system and galaxy, through such missions as the Mars Observer,
MAGELLAN, GALILEO, and ULYSSES. We should study comets and asteroids
up-close, as we are now able to do. We should not rule out manned
missions, but neither should we allow them to continue to drive NASA's
major programs. As a rule, it is more cost effective and efficient to
conduct missions without people aboard.
"NASA should be restored to its original mission of studying the
Universe. NASA should not be forced to use its scarce resources to
carry out the Pentagon's military space missions. NASA can reclaim
its legacy of excellence in research.
"As President, I will chart a long-range civilian space policy
that will provide technological and research leadership into the 21st
century."
For more information, write to: Paul Simon for President, 302
Fifth Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
- ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________
| |
BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture |
CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________|
PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{rutgers,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni
|
| 306.23 | Al Gore's space program policy | DICKNS::KLAES | Through the land of Mercia... | Mon Mar 07 1988 17:50 | 74 |
| From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: AL GORE ON SPACE POLICY - Where the candidates stand, Part II
Date: 6 Mar 88 16:40:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
I recently sent letters to all the Democratic Presidential
candidates, asking their position on SPACE and United States SPACE
POLICY. So far, I have received responses from Paul Simon and Al Gore.
Paul Simon's response has been posted. If anyone did not see it
and would like a copy, please EMAIL me.
The following is a copy of the letter I received from Democrat AL
GORE and tells his views on SPACE:
February 29, 1988
Dear Friend:
Thank you for your recent letter on the space program.
I care deeply about reinvigorating the nation's civilian space program.
In the Senate, I was a leader in the investigation into the Challenger
disaster, and have seen the disarray of the program. As President, I
will give the space program the high priority it deserves at the
beginning of my term, not at the end.
Here are my goals:
-- I will lead this nation to set clear goals in space. The next target
for exploration is Mars. We should begin planning now.
-- I will expand our vision of space exploration to include the
exploration of our own planet. In space, we may find the key to the
understanding such environmental threats as the greenhouse effect and
ozone depletion.
-- I will place a greater emphasis on the development of commercial
applications of space technologies. NASA helped lead the way in such
innovations as robotics and remote sensing. The agency now should work
to bring other technologies to the market.
-- I will reverse the balance between our military and civilian space
programs. The administration's obsession with SDI has upset the
traditional balance between the two programs. The Pentagon already
spends twice as much on space as NASA.
To accomplish these goals, I plan to install new leaders at NASA,
appointing those who can command the loyalty and respect of NASA's
employees.
Thank you for your interest in my campaign. I hope this information is
useful, and that I can count on your support.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
For more information, contact: Al Gore for President, P.O. Box
15800, Arlington, VA 22215.
I will be posting more letters on space policy as I receive them
from the other candidates. Copies of any received so far are
available by EMAIL.
- ERIC -
*----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
* ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET *
* rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*
|
| 306.24 | From Michael Dukakis | AUTHOR::KLAES | Kind of a Zen thing, huh? | Mon Mar 21 1988 16:13 | 159 |
| From: BOWERYJ%CPVA.SAINET.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Dukakis Position Paper on Space
Date: 15 Mar 88 00:56:34 GMT
Mike Dukakis on the Issues
Restoring American Leadership in Space
A generation ago, President John F. Kennedy raised the sights and
the spirits of all Americans by challenging our scientists and
citizens to go forward with a bold program of space exploration.
MERCURY, GEMINI, and APOLLO fired our imaginations and our pride;
VOYAGER, VIKING, and SKYLAB explored the depths of our solar system and
the resources of our planet, gave us new insight into the origins of
our Universe, and provided new knowlege and understanding with which we
could improve the quality of life on Earth.
Sadly, in recent years, our space program has lost its sense of
purpose. Despite annual expenditures approaching $10 billion per
year, NASA is demoralized and our space effort is in disarray, our
space science program no longer leads the world, and the tragedy of
the Space Shuttle CHALLENGER has created doubts about the ability of
the United States to operate effectively in space. Our space program
has been dominated by military considerations, while our competitiveness
in the world-wide commercial market has steadily eroded.
A New National Consensus
For seven years, the current Administration has pursued a
program-by-program, piecemeal approach to our space effort. The time
has come to renew our commitment to an imaginative, well-desiged space
policy. To turn away from the fantasy of Star Wars and to seek again
to explore space for the benefit of all mankind. The next President
must forge a new national consensus behind our goals in space: A
vision that will guide our policies throughout the next decade and
into the next century.
We must begin by addressing our basic aims in space: How to
reinvigorate our space science program, how to maintain America's
technological edge in the face of increasing foreign competition; how
to meet our requirements for space transportation; and how to define
the role of manned space activities. The massive federal budget
deficit will limit the resources available to the next President. He
must work with Congress to set clear priorities and attainable goals,
while strengthening partnerships between the federal government, our
universities and the research community, and the private sector.
Promoting a Competitive America Space Industry
We need a space policy that will promote the competitiveness of
American industry in the growing international market and expand job
opportunities, while serving fundamental national goals in space. We
should encourage commercial uses of space. The federal government
must provide our private sector with the opportunity to invest in and
develop space-related technologies, transportation systems and satellites.
As President, I will encourage private investment by creating
partnerships between the federal government and the private sector
that emphasizes joint research programs. I will set forth clear
policies for commercial competition to help promote our ability to
meet the world-wide demand for launch services. And I will
reinvigorate the White House office of Science and Technology Policy
and charge it with the responsibility for ensuring effective
coordination among government agencies and greater private sector
involvement in our nation's space effort.
Reinvigorating Space Science
Rather than spend billions of dollars for projects that serve
narrow interests -- such as the "Orient Express" space plane that will
fly from New York to Tokyo in three hours, we should invest in a space
program that will benefit our nation and humankind as a whlle. We
should emphasize research, the development of innovative technology
and space science, to expand our knowlege of Earth's resources and
the world's oceans, improve communications and reveal the mysteries of
the Universe. We must develop a comprehensive, long-term plan to
assure stable funding for important space science projects such as
the Venus Radar mapper, the Mars Observer, the Advanced X-Ray
Astrophysics Facility and the Hubble Space Telescope.
Assuring Our Access to Space
Second, we ust restore our space transportation capability. I
support the recommendation of the Challenger Commission to return the
shuttle to service with a reduced flight schedule to help ensure
higher safety standards, and to build a fourth orbiter, using proven
technology. At the same time, the disruption caused by the shuttle
disaster and the failures of the Titan and Delta rockets makes clear
the need to diversify our nation's launch capability and devlop
affordable alternatives to the shuttle (such as new expendable launch
vehicles) for delivering important payloads into space.
An Affordable, Practical Space Station
Third, we should review the options for the space station. I
support the development, at a prudent pace, of a technologically
sophisticated space science and engineering laboratory -- but there
are a number of less costly alternatives to the station now envisioned
by NASA. These alternatives -- including a station that need not be
permanently manned -- could be in operation much sooner and could meet
most, if not all of the requirements of the larger, permanently manned
space station.
Skilled Management for NASA
Fifth, I will appoint skilled managers at NASA who will restore
professionalism and competence to our space program. Managers who will
set high standards for NASA personnel and contractors -- and who will
make sure that those standards are met. The continuing failures in
our shuttle program are symptomatic of management gone awry -- our
nation deserves better.
International Cooperation in Space
Finally, I will ask the Soviet Union, and other space-faring
nations, to join with the US in more cooperative efforts in space.
While we must be careful to protect sensitive technologies in these
cooperative programs, they offer an unparalleled opportunity for all
nations to work together on projects which will benefit us all. We
should renew the US- USSR Space Science Agreement, coordinate the 1989
Soviet mission to Phobos with the US Mars Observer flight, and invite
the USSR to join with the US, Japan and the European Space Agency in
the International Solar Terrestrial Physics Program. And we should
explore with the Soviet Union and other nations the feasibility and
practicality of joint space engineering activities that might pave the
way to a joint manned mission to Mars.
Enhancing Our Security in Space
I strongly oppose the Administration's militarization of space.
Star Wars and anti-satellite weapons not only make our nation less
secure; they divert funds and attention from far more important space
research efforts. As President, I will direct the Pentagon to focus
its efforts on programs that will enhance our security, such as
improved satellites for arms control verification and early warning of
attack, communications, navagation, and meteorology.
And I will challenge the Soviet Union to join with us in new
agreements to protect our vital space activities and enhance our
security. By negotiating a ban on testing anti- satellite weapons --
including lasers and electronic interference. By developing
guidelines for space operations -- such as "keep out zones" that will
reduce the danger of attack on satellites. And by placing limits on
military activities by humans in space.
Inspiring the Next Generation of Space Scientists
The future of the American space program depends on its ability to
inspire and attract the bright young people of our nation. I support
the establishment of educational programs that will motivate young
people to explore careers in space science and technology. NASA, its
scientists and engineers, and the private sector can be an important
part of that effort.
During the 1960s, our space program became a symbol of what the
American mind and spirit can accomplish. As President, I will work
with all those involved in the adventure of space to restore our sense
of pride and purpose; and to explore the final frontier.
|
| 306.25 | From Jesse Jackson | DICKNS::KLAES | It's Bicycle Repair Man! | Mon Apr 04 1988 16:41 | 151 |
| From: EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Jesse Jackson's space policy
Date: 1 Apr 88 23:36:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
The following is a DRAFT of Jesse Jackson's stands on space. The
following is typed from a Draft released 2/29/88.
For more information, contact: Jesse Jackson '88, 30 West
Washington Street, Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60602 // 312-855-3773
DRAFT - EXPLORING SPACE TO BENEFIT ALL HUMANITY
"For too long, our space program has been driven by military
rivalries and corporate greed. The technology that can result from a
space program oriented to public needs will be the economic backbone
of our country and the world in the 21st century. It is time for new
leadership, so that America's space program can go forward in
partnership with all humanity." - Jesse Jackson
The development of high technology has given humanity the ability
to send people into orbit around Earth and to the Moon, and to
send machines to the very ends of the solar system. Space exploration
has produced an abundance of scientific knowledge about the Earth and
about the other planets, increased our ability to do solar
forecasting, made possible instantaneous worldwide communication, and
created jobs by opening new markets and stimulating productivity.
But space technology has its down side as well. Military space
technology is spurring the arms race and increasing the risks of a
nuclear war which would destroy humanity. The possession of this
enormous capability carries with it the responsibility to ensure that
technology is used wisely for the benefit of all people.
The Reagan Administration has failed in that responsibility. It
has seen the development of space weapons as a way to demonstrate
superiority over the Soviet Union, and has misled the American people
with its absurd claims that Strategic Defense Initiative, better known
as Star Wars, can protect us all from the threat of nuclear war. At
the same time, it has failed to give leadership in shaping a long-term
vision of what good things our country, in cooperation with other
nations, ought to be doing in space.
To develop our space program to benefit all humanity, I propose to:
* STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE
A new direction in space policy requires abandonment both of the
Star Wars program and of the development of anti-satellite weapons.
Star Wars is a cruel hoax. It offers an impossible technological
solution to a political problem. It will cost over a trillion dollars
in the heavens. Space-based weapons will generate counter weapons
which will generate counter-protective weapons which will generate
first strike space plans. Our coffers will be robbed; our science
distorted; and our insecurity increased.
The Soviets have said that they are willing to curtail their own
space weapons development. We ought to challenge them to keep their
word by signing a mutual and verifiable agreement to keep space free
of all weapons and nuclear war fighting systems. Satellites must play
an important role in verifying this and all other arms control agreements.
At the same time, we must be scrupulous in adhering to the most
significant arms control treaty of recent decades, the 1972 ABM
Treaty, which restricts the development of anti-ballistic missile
systems such as Star Wars. We cannot make peace while undermining
existing treaties.
* SHARE SPACE TECHNOLOGY
The United States must improve its efforts, through the United
Nations and other international bodies, to see that technological
developments in space truly do benefit all people everywhere. Space
technology is not the province of just the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
In 1967, an Outer Space Treaty was signed by over 100 nations, which
says that space ought to be used for peaceful purposes that benefit
all humanity. Today, many countries have active space programs. The
Western European countries, Japan, China, and India have launched
their own satellites. Many other countries use satellites for the
environmental monitoring and communications to promote their own
economic development.
Satellites can observe the fragile environment of the Earth in a
systematic and efficient fashion. Remote sensing of our planet is
critical as we strive to protect and restore our ecology. Depending on
its orbit, a single satellite can observe much or all of the surface
of our planet. The valuable scientific information that results must
be shared, along with the expertise to make use of it, for we have
only one shared environment among all nations and peoples.
* EXPLORE THE PLANETS
Planetary exploration by robot spacecraft has produced a golden
age of astronomy. The pace of that exploration, which teaches us much
about the mysteries of our very origins, has slowed due to
mismanagement and shortsightedness. We must turn to our planetary and
space scientists for guidance as to the scientific priorities. It is
important for us to learn more about the sun, the comets, the
asteroids, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter. Whenever practical, these
missions should be undertaken cooperatively with other nations.
Scientific exploration is not cheap, but it is an investment in our future.
* PARTICIPATE IN JOINT U.S.-SOVIET SPACE PROJECTS
A joint U.S.-Soviet mission to Mars is an idea which has great
potential to bring our peoples together in both practical and symbolic
ways. Since Mars is the planet most like Earth, there is real
scientific merit in learning more about it. Both countries are
planning unmanned missions to Mars, and we ought to combine our
efforts immediately. We also should begin discussions with the Soviets
on the feasibility of sending a human crew to Mars in a joint
U.S.-Soviet mission, with involvement by other nations as well.
The U.S. is now planning a space station. We should direct the
National Academy of Sciences to approach its Soviet counterpart which
has had success with their Salyut and Mir stations, with the intention
of jointly leading an international effort dedicated to studying the
needs of a permanent presence of humans on an earth-orbiting space
station. If such a presence is deemed to be of value, we should
participate in the construction of such a space station. It should be
charged with developing globally beneficial technology for
communications, maritime and air traffic control, and astronomical,
geological, and geophysical exploration. A space station can produce
advances in scientific and commercial development, with strong
leadership, capable management, and careful thought. A project this
complex must not be done solely for reasons of prestige.
When the Space Shuttle CHALLENGER exploded in January of 1986, two
women, a Black man, and an Asian-American man were among the seven who
died. The CHALLENGER disaster symbolizes both the crisis of the U.S.
space program and its future strength. In order to revitalize the U.S.
space program, it must truly be a program that all humanity can
embrace. For too long, our space program has been driven by military
rivalries and corporate greed. The technology that can result from a
careful program of space exploration and development will be the
economic backbone of our country and the world in the 21st century.
Our children and grandchildren will benefit or suffer by the decisions
we make now. It is time for new leadership, so that America's space
program can go forward in partnership with all humanity.
------ END OF TEXT FROM JESSE JACKSON ------
- ERIC -
*----------------------===> SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
* ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU // ewtileni@pucc.BITNET *
* rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni // princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*
|
| 306.26 | Passing the buck | LDP::WEAVER | Laboratory Data Products | Wed Apr 06 1988 23:34 | 4 |
| Re: .25
In other words, he thinks space exploration is important, but don't
talk to him about funding it out of his budget.
|
| 306.27 | WHICH PLATFORM??? | WIMPY::MOPPS | | Thu Jul 21 1988 15:58 | 29 |
| With the candidates set and for the most part nominated by their
parties, we should begin the discussion of the differences for the
hopefulls. I see the strong commitments made already by the
Republicans to space and their recognition of past ills of spending
without funding or direction. I am very leary of Democratic funding
practices but it was a democrat who got us on the moon!
I also just finished reading an editorial posted on july 20 on the
space station calling for yet another review of the technological
vrs the off the shelf approaches. If I were GOD I would go off
the shelf,and Mike seems to be bent toward that direction, I also
noted that his position is *against* perminent man rating and station
keeping. I dissagree with this.
Georges team on the other hand have a carryover space policy from
the Old man. The weakness with program is the strong SDI influence,
and I find that though this keeps space dollars flowing to both
the private and military, it is provacative to the Soviet culture.
If they ever view this as a threat of seige on their culture vrs
something they can attain or surpass, these dollars are foolishly
spent dollars and for all the wrong reasons.
I believe two perminantly manned stations is the real start point
for a space infra-structure we all appear to desire. I feel the
place for the platforms is not important. As long as it does not
fall fallow for funding, or get nocked down by something that goes
boom.
Les
|