Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:42:53 GMT
Subject: Science Fantasylands
From: jya-AT-pipeline.com (John Young)


   Scientific American, June, 1996 
 
 
   The Space Station's Disappointing Odyssey [Editorial] 
 
 
   Through three presidential administrations and a dozen 
   years of planning and replanning, advocates of the 
   International Space Station (in all its incarnations) have 
   sold it with pitches ranging from the romantic to the 
   pragmatic. They have called it our steppingstone to Mars 
   and the other planets. As a laboratory and forerunner of 
   space manufacturing facilities, it would yield potentially 
   marvelous scientific and technological benefits. And work 
   on building the station would pay off in jobs in the 
   aerospace industry and others. 
 
   A not so funny thing happened on the way to the launchpad: 
   the middle set of those arguments fell out. As Tim 
   Beardsley details in "Science in the Sky," [see Web site 
   below], the scientific and technological capabilities of 
   the station have been compromised to the point that many 
   researchers question the worth of the station altogether. 
   Of course, the station is still the only place to learn how 
   people will fare in microgravity. NASA has stated that this 
   is now the station's primary goal, and it is a good one 
   because it does keep alive our dream of exploring the 
   cosmos in the flesh. Still, even the most loyal fans of the 
   space program must admit to the tautology -- we should be 
   in space because we want to be in space -- in this 
   justification. 
 
   The economic arguments seem to have had most sway over 
   Washington, which fears killing the station and putting 
   voters out of work. Moreover, the project is now also 
   supposed to keep Russia's scientific establishment well 
   employed and out of mischief. Thus, humankind's greatest 
   adventure reduces to a high-tech jobs program and an 
   instrument of foreign policy. 
 
   As a child of the space age, I feel cheated. But should I? 
   The Apollo program was clearly a weapon of national 
   prestige and a technological engine during the cold war, 
   but going to the moon was a glorious adventure nonetheless. 
   Economics and politics have never been alien to the manned 
   space program. Moreover, creating jobs and opportunities to 
   spin off new technologies are desirable ends. 
 
   But if enthusiasm for follow-up space missions evaporates, 
   and work on the station has failed to deliver down-to-earth 
   benefits, an angry electorate will be wondering why so much 
   money was wasted. And if keeping the aerospace industry 
   occupied on a meaningless project distracts it from the 
   more economically vital job of reinventing itself for 
   post-cold war competitiveness, the $27-billion price tag of 
   the station may be higher than we imagine. 
 
   It will be very nice to have a working space station. It's 
   a pity that we'll be getting this one. 
 
   John Rennie, Editor in Chief, editors-AT-sciam.com 
 
   ----- 
 
   To read "Science in the Sky" see: 
 
      http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/iss.txt