home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv!stars.gsfc.nasa.gov!dc
- From: dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham)
- Subject: Space Station & APS
- Message-ID: <29JUL199213170451@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- Summary: Building an interplanetary bureaucracy
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
- Keywords: infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure
- Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: stars.gsfc.nasa.gov
- Reply-To: dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov
- Organization: NASA/GSFC-Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:17:00 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- There has been an active flame war here on the recent APS statement
- on the proposed Space Station, which I want to jump into right here.
-
- I have seen statements flying by that the APS opposes the Space Station.
- However, if you read the statement you can see that the APS only opposes
- the justification of SSF on the grounds of scientific research.
- Basically, the supporters of SSF told the public "This will be great for
- science" and the scientists have responded "It won't either". The APS
- does not comment on other purported justifications of the SSF.
-
- Nor does the APS claim that no science will be done on the Space Station.
- Indeed, we only have to look at the history of the shuttle to forsee
- the future of space station science. Experiments that would be better
- and more cheaply done in rocket-launched satellites will be forced to
- take a ride on the shuttle and get bolted to the Space Station.
-
- - Dave Cottingham
- dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov
- Disclaimer: My opinions, not necessarily those of USRA,
- and obviously not those of NASA.
-