Response from Representative Dwyer
e.c.leeper
reply I got from Representative Dwyer may be of interest:
> "Thank you for contacting me concerning the future of manned space
> flights in light of the terrible tragedy of the Challenger space
> shuttle and its crew.
>
> The consensus of opinions voiced so far is similar to yours and
> supportive of the continuation of manned space flights. Obviously,
> it will be some months before any further shuttle flights will be
> scheduled due to the investigation into the Challenger's accident.
>
> As a member of the Space Caucus, I, too, feel that the space program
> has been of enormous benefit to mankind in many varied ways. I
> appreciate having your comments on this important issue and will
> keep your views in mind during the coming months as the
> investigation into NASA's future continues. I hope that you will
> continue to advise me of your feelings on matters of mutual concern
> and will contact me whenever I can be of service."
(This is the letter I sent to Dwyer and Senator Bradley (if it looks familiar,
it's because pieces were shamelessly stolen from net.space):
I want to urge your support for the continuation of the
manned space program (and the manned space station) with a
full and adequate level of funding. This includes the
building of at least two more orbiters, one to replace
Challenger, and the other to serve as the fifth orbiter that
should have been built before.
The questions may arise: do we need a shuttle-like vehicle,
and does it need to be manned? The answer to the first is
unequivocally yes; it is the only way we have of getting
large arbitrary objects in and out of orbit, and it is the
only way we will have for quite some years. I think that
the answer to the second is also yes, and I will try to
summarize why. First, a vehicle like the shuttle is
basically a space station which we do not need to maintain
in space for long periods, and which also provides launching
and retrieval to earth. In this capacity it is useful to
take humans if only because they can do space station
activities while the vehicle does whatever else it needs to
do--that is the rationale behind Spacelab. Second, we do
not have teleoperators that can perform anything other than
moving objects from one location to another. There is no
machine that can disassemble an automobile engine (or any
other engine), and there won't be one for a while. That
means that if we want to do repairs and the like in orbit,
we have to take people with us for the present. Forgoing
this means forgetting things like the Hubble telescope, and
why build expendable observatories when they can be repaired
and modified to last for many years?
We should begin designing the next vehicle. And we should
continue to use the one we have now, with people aboard.
)
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl
(or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)