100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 21, 1971 - Image 6

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1971-02-21

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page Six

THE MICHIGAN DAILY

Sunday, February 21, 1971

U

I

m= m mmmm=-=mm == -m m -
The Honorable Phil Hart
.U.S. Senate1
* Washington, D.C. 20510 1
Dear Senator Hart:
1 We have read a lot lately about I
I how something called "technol- I
: ogy" has gotten out of hand and 1
ought to be stopped before horrible
1 things happen to us. This is rather 1
* childish, but a lot of people seem t
to take it seriously. I
1 Sure, we've got to clean up the1
environment. We've got to make,
1 sure our river water is not fouled 1
I and our cities are quieter places to I
* live in. But why blame technology, I
when it is our only means of solv-
ing the problems? 1
1 Take the SST for example. We 1
1 know that aircraft engines are m
1 getting cleaner and cleaner all the I
time. It stands to reason that the1
less time an airplane is' in the air,
1 the less it will pollute. It seems to 1
1 me, then, that the SST is one good I
1 answer to our concern about the 1
environment.1
As one who has followed theM
,supersonic race with France and 1
s England, and Russia, I happen tow1
1 think the American SST will be a 1
1 far superior plane. We certainly
shouldn't cut off the orderly de-
1 velopment now that we are so close -1
1 to flying the prototype. I hope I
' when the vote comes up, you will I
$ back the project. 1
And I hope you can take equally 1
1 sensible stands on other technolog- 1
1 ical questions. Fight for a better U
1 tomorrow, but make technology an 1
I ally instead of a target.
1 Respectfully, ' I
1
1
1 Name............................I.
1
1 1
cAddress......................
I U
City.........State......Zip.....
!mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m

I The Honorable Phil Hart
1 U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510 j
1 Dear Senator Hart:I
1
We have read a lot lately about l
j hQw something called "technol- I
I ogy" has gotten out of hand and 1
" ought to be stopped before horrible
* things happen to us. This is rather *
I childlish, but a lot of people seem p
* to take it seriously. I
I .Sure, we've got to clean up the I
I environment. We've got to make;
sure our river water is not fouled I
and our cities are quieter places to i
I live in. But why blame technology, I
I when it is our only means of solv-I
# ing the problems?
I Take the SST for example. We I
* know that aircraft engines are a
I getting cleaner and cleaner all thL I
I time. It stands to reason that the
I less time an airplane is in the air, 1
the less it will pollute. It seems tc *
1 me, then, that the SST is one good I
* answer to our concern about the*
I environment.
I As one who has followed the
supersonic race with France and I
* england, and Russia, I happen to I
I think the American SST will be a
far superior plane. We certainly 1
shouldn't cut off the orderly de-
velopment now that we are so close *
to flying the prototype. I hope I
I when the vote comes up, you wil. I
I back, the project.
I And I hope you can take equally *
* sensible stands on other technolog- *
ical questions. Fight for a better U
1 tomorrow, but make technology an I
I ally instead of, a target, 3
I /
I Respectfully,
I 1
I
Name.............. ...........
I 1
I I
1 Address. ............... .........I
I I
I C.
*City..........State...Zip..

I The Honorable Robert Griffin 1
1 U.S. Senate 1
I1
Washington, D.C. 205104.1
1 Dear Senator Griffin:
1 We have read a lot lately about 1
1 how something called "technol- I
1 ogy" has gotten out of hand and 1
1 ought to be stopped before horriole.
things happen to us. This is rather 1
1 childlish, but a lot of people seem 1
1 to take it seriously. 1
1 Sure, we've got to clean up the1
1 environment. We've got to make
sure our river water is not fouled 1
* and our cities are quieter places to I
1 live in. But why blame technology, I
I when it is our only means of solv-
ing the problems?1
Take the SST for example. We 1
j know that aircraft engines are 1
1 getting cleaner and cleaner all the 1
1 time. It stands to reason that the1
1 less time an airplane is in the air,
the less it will pollute. It seems t 1
1 me, then, that the SST is one good I
1 answer to our concern about the *
1 environment.
As one who has followed the,
supersonic race with France and 1
1 England, and Russia, I happen to 1
1 think the American SST will be a 1
1 far superior plane. We certainly1
1 shouldn't cut off the orderly de-
* velopment now that we are so cl *
1 to flying the prototype. I hope I
1 when the vote comes up, you wil.
I back the project.1
And I hope you can take equally 1
sensible stands on other technolog- 1
1 ical questions. Fight for a better I
1 tomorrow, but make technology an
1 ally instead of a target,
1 1
1 Respectfully, I
S_- I1
II
1 Name........................... 1
1 1
* I
1 Address........................... 1
I I
* City.........State.....Zip.
Iwwwwwwwwwwww

E The Honorable Robert Griffin I
j U.S. SenateE
v Washington, D.C. 20510 i
Dear Senator Griffin:
f We have read a lot lately about
I how something called "technol- *
* ogy" has gotten out of hand and I
ought to be stopped before horrible E
* things happen to us. This is rather
E childish, but a lot of ,people seem
I to take it seriously.
Sure, we've got to clean up the I
environment. We've got to make
* sure our river water is not fouled
* and our cities are quieter places to
E live in. But why blame technology, *
E when it is our only means of solv- U
ing the problems?E
* Take the SST for example. We
v know that aircraft engines are E
getting cleaner and cleaner all the E
time. It stands to reason that the E
less time an airplane is in the air,
* the less it will pollute. It seems to E
* me, then, that the SST is one good E
I answer to our concern about the *
* environment. I
As one who has followed the *
* supersonic race with France and ;
E England, and Russia, I happen to *
I think the American SST will be a I
far superior plane. We certainly I
shouldn't cut off the orderly de- *
* velopment now that we are so close
v to flying the prototype. I hope *
* when the vote comes up, you will g
back the project. E
And I hope you can take equally E
* sensible stands on other technolog- E
E ical questions. Fight for a better *
I tomorrow, but make technology an g
ally instead of a target.
* Respectfully,'E
1 U
* I
I Name......................... E
* t
* I
I Address...........................I
* E
C t
*City..........State. .. ..Zip.. ..

1 1
t 1
1 The Honorable ... .
" U.S. House of Representatives 1
Washington, D.C. 20515 5
1 I
* Dear Mr.......... . .... ... . 1
* I
1 I see in tihe papers that the 1
1 question of more funds for the
1 supersonic transport project will
1 be taken up soon by Congress. 1
felt I should write to express rmn?.
views (and those of almost every- I
1 one I know and work with) about I
1 the SST. 1
It seems to me that with Eng-
Sland. France and Russia working *
hard to beat us at our own game I
1 with the next generation of air- 1
1 liners, the least we can do at this 1
1 time is to meet them head on with
a better competing product. 1
Why shouldn't American scient- i
1 ists and engineers be able to de- 1
1 sign agood airplane with no harm-1
1 ful effects on the environment?
Any reasonable man should at
1 least be willing to give them the I
I chance to do so. 1
1 The thousands of jobs that1
1 would be lost,if we don't build an
SST are certainly important. Bu? 1
don't forget the tens of thousands f
1 of people who work for small com- I1
! panies that supply to airplane
1 manufacturers. All sorts of com- *
* panies across the nation will be 1
1 affected. 1
1 I hope you vote to continue work1
1 on the SST prototypes. It would bef
a shame to let everything that has 1
1 been done up to now go to waste. 1
1 For the good of the country, please I
I do all you can for the SST. 1
1 I
1 Sincerely,
1 1
1 Name............ ....,,...........
1 1
j Address..................... .
1 1
* Address .................
Irrrrrrrrrrrr

j The Honorable . . .
I U.S. House of Representatives
* Washington, D.C. 20515
I I
* Dear Mr......... .........
I see in the papers that the I
quest ion of more funds for the
v supersonic transport project will
8 be taken up soon by Congress. 1g
felt I should write to express my *
views (and those of almost every t
one I know and work with) about U
I the SST.
I
It seems to me that with Eng-
land, France and Russia working
* hard to beat us at our own game I
f with the next generation of air-
* liners, the least we can do at this
i time is to meet them head on with *
a better competing product. 1
Why shouldn't American scient- I
ists and engineers be able to de- I
* sign a good airplane with no harm-
I ful effects on the environment? .
Any reasonable man should at i
least be willing to give them the I
chance to do so.
I The thousands of jobs that
I would be lost if we don't build an
SST are certainly important. But i
don't forget the tens of thousands
I of people who work for small com-
E panies that supply to airplane
I manufacturers. All sorts of com- j
panies across the nation will be 1
affected."
aI hope you vote to continue work f
I on the SST prototypes. It would be R
* a shame to let everything that has g
R been done up to now go to waste. I
For the good of the country, please
* do all you can for the SST.
Sincerely, I
iN am e.......... ...... ..........
1 I
Address.........................I
* City ............State......Zip....
mm mm mm m mm mm mmmm mm:mmw

E Fly America's SuperSonic#
! Transport !
E !
E "503 Student Activities Building E
* The University of Michigan !
E Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104#
I E
! Dear Sir:
U E
I wish to support your organ ia-
tion. and I am enclosing herewith I
# a donation made out to FASST. 1 !
E realize this money is needed for
! mailing, distribution, and advertis- E
: ing cost and am happy to lend my I!
t support. Please put me on your !
! mailing list to r e c e i v e future5
I newsletters and related material.!
! In addition I believe the construe- g
tion of an American SST prototype I
! concurrent w i t h environmental I
I concerns is necessary to the eco-#
5 nomic balance in the United5
I States. The government needs rev- E
# enue producing programs such as
* the SST in order to pay for the
j nation's social programs.#
I #
! r
# #
r E
E E
# #
# r
E #
E #
5 I
# #
I
! !
Name ...............,..............
! #
g#
j A ddress ...... ........ .. . .. .....
I C
1 #
Namet. ......... .tte........i......E
wwww+wwwwwwwi U

E Fly America's SuperSonic
* Transport
! '503 Student Activities Building I
* E
E The University of Mlichigan
E Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104I
E E
Dear SirE
S I wilm t o support your organixa- E
E tion. and 1 am enclosing herewith E
! a donation made out to FASST. I I
! realire this money is needed for I
nmailing, distribution. and advertis-
E ing cost and am happy to lend my E
E support. Please put me on you1 E
E mailing list' to r e c e i v e future I
newsletters and related material. I
In addition I believe the construe-
* tion of an American SST prototype g
E concurrent w i t h environmental E
E concerns is necessary to the eco- I
nomic ba l a n c e in the United !
States. The government needs rev-
E enue producing programs such sE
E the SST in order to pay for the E
E nation's social programs. I
1 !
E E
E E
E
E 1
! i
E !
* E
E E
E E
E E
I .
E E
E I
! E
! E
! !
I E
! E
E !
E E
E E
E Address . ................
* I
I 1
City.......State . t... .. 1
rwrrwwrwrwIrre

*I

q

141

"As you may know, Mr. President, railroad carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of, 14 miles per hou
engines, which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through
countryside, setting fire to the crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and, children. The
mighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed."
-N.Y. Governor Martin Van Buren to President Andrew Jacksoi

r by
the
Al-
n, 1829

If Van Buren could have only known what the future held ..
sight which many of us suffer from even today.

. a lack of in-

FASST FACTS
This fact sheet is intended to deal with many of the most serious objections to America's SST
program, and to review the factual basis for the program which has motivated four presidents to
approve it. We of FAAST welcome additional questions or comments, which are not covered in this
brief paper.
WHERE DOES THE PROGRAM STAND NOW? The program calls for the Government to spend
$1.283 .itllion to construct two prototypes, and to pay for the research and development required
for their design. As of July 1, 1970, some $708 million had been spent. Since then, continuing reso-
lutions and use of unallocated funds have resulted in some $200 million more being spent. Govern-
ment cancellation could involve contractual penalties of up to $161 million. Thus, the Government
has two options: To fund the program according to plan, thus spending $1.3 billion and establish-
ing the capability for an ongoing, privately-funded, SST production program; or, to kill the pro-
gram, spending $1.1 billion and producing absolutely nothing.
The program now is quite far along. Next month, some 90% of the working blueprints will have
been released. Some 2000 parts have already been fabricated, and in April the first major assembly
-the wing-is scheduled for construction. The prime contractors-Boeing and General Electric-
have met their schedules and remained within budget. The Boeing program manager, H.W. With-
ington, has stated that "this is one of the best-managed experimental programs" he has seen, and
attributes this to the close public scrutiny it has received.
But the recent Senate action, failing to fund the $290 million Fiscal 1971 appropriation, has thrown
a monkey wrench into .the well-oiled management, disrupting the program. Managers now state
that unless the Government adheres to its spending plans, the program must be stretched out and
costs will rise. Thus, any reduction in programmed spending makes no fiscal sense. The govern-
ment is left with the two alternatives: spend $1.1 billion and get nothing, or spend an extra $200
milliqn and finish the program' according to plan.
WHAT ABOUT POSSIBLE OVERRUNS? There are-"suggestions" that the Government might have
to put up another $2 billion or more to complete the program. Such statements are, indeed, "sug-
gestions". The manufacturers have been, and still are, below their budgets. Moreover, in any over-
run their share of the costs would increase 150%, according to contract. Recently President Nixon
has stated that he would request no further Government funding after completion of the proto-
type. Thus, there is no evidence to support these "suggestions".
HOW DOES THIS PROGRAM FIT IN WITH THE NATION'S OTHER PRESSING NEEDS? It will
help us to meet them. For from representing a bad priority, the SST actually will help us meet
other pressing priorities. Even the most desirable social programs represent outlays which are not
recovered; such programs, moreover, do not improve our balance of payments. The SST -will re-
cover the governmen'ts investment and will create new revenues to be applied to social needs. It
does this in three ways:
BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS: At present, some 85% of the world's commercial airplanes are Ameri-
can-built. This represents some $2 billion in foreign sales annually. But this market faces a strong
challenge by the Europeans. In addition to their own SST, Concorde, they have the A-300 "airbus"
or jumbo jet, and the Mercure short-haul jet.
Why is this significant? Because airlines consider a manufacturer's "family" of aircraft in buying
new planes. They would not buy subsonic jets from us and supersonics from Europe; they would
instead buy a complete Furopean line. Today, all manufacturers are building jumbo-jets because
the airlines would not buy from a company that built only the smaller ones. In 1980, the same
will be true for SST's.
Between now and 1990, the foreign aircraft market will aggregate some $50 billion, including spare
parts. This much foreign trade is not easily generated or maintained. Our SST represents a super-
ioir product, and will allow us to maintain this market-if we build it. If we do not, the Europeans
will build a larger, more productive Concorde II, which is already under study-and our aviation
industry will suffer greatly. It is for this reason that the AFL-CIO Executive Council has endorsed,
our SSTprogram.
TAXES: Some 50,000 people will be working on our SST, and these jobs will primarily be at the
highest skill levels. Another 100,000 service jobs will be created through the multiplier effect. All
these people will pay taxes. In addition, the strengthened aerospace industry will continue to pay
its share of the taxes; the whole industry will benefit, and so will its tax-paying ability. The an-
nual taxes will aggregate $10.5 billion by 1985.
ROYALTIES: Every plane sold will return a royalty. Already 129 are on order; these would suffice
to repay 43%( of the government's outlay. The conservative forecasts of Boeing show that 515 will
be sold; these studies are not "iffy" but are conservative, since Boeing must stake its future plan-
ning on their correctness. Other studies show as much as 800 sold. Even if only 500 are sold, this
would still net the government $1 billion in clear profit. The SST program is thus a rarity: it will
nake money for the government, not take money from the government,
WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE FOREIGN COMPETITION? Some people have attempted to down-
grade the competitive challenge of the Concorde. There is no basis for downgrading Concorde. E. H.
Burgess, of British Aircraft Corporation fbuilder of the Concorde) gave a progress report in Novem-
ber to a group of aerospace experts in Washington. He reported that its manufacturers have begun
building the seventeenth airframe. Developmental tests on the prototypes have led to a gain in
payload of 4000 pounds, and sideline noise has been reduced by 5 decibels through these tests.
Aviation Week has more recently reported that a decision to commit to full-scale production is ex-
pected shortly; that a decision to cancel the program would be supported by only 28% of the Bri-
tish public; and that BOAC will be placing its first orders for production aircraft on Feb. 15. The
Concorde is here, and it will not go away.
HOW IS PRII ATE INDUSTRY SUPPORTING THE PROGRAM? The Government is providing 90',
of the developmental costs of the SST. But private industry has never paid for commercial airplane
development on any major scale. The 747s development was largely paid for by the Air Force, since
the 747 is a commercial version of Boeing's proposal for the C-5. The 707 grew out of developmen-
tal work or. Boeing's jet bombers, also paid for by the Air Force. In the case of the SST, support
comes not from the Air Force but from the Department of Transportation.
On the other hand, private industry has supported this project on an unprecedented scale. In the
early 1950's, Boeing spent $16 million of its own money to build the 707-a huge sum for that day.
Today, the airlines and manufacturers are putting up some 30 times that amount. The 129 planes
on order represent unprecedented airline interest. At this stage in the development of the 707,
none were on order; the first 707 was not ordered till its prototype was already flying.
WHAT WILL SST OPERATIONS COST THE CUSTOMER? There are those SST critics who have
suggested that supersonic travel would be very expensive, or that it even would have to be subsi-
dized through higher fares for subsonic flights. The facts are otherwise.
Our SST will be twice as expensive as a 747. But it will also be twice as productive, productivity
being measured in number of seats times speed. Operating costs, in cents per seat-mile, will be

GE-4 ENGINE ILLUSTRATING SOUND SUPPRESSING CENTERBODY CONE (front) AND TAILPIPE DIFFUSER
ON REAR WHICH WILL RESULT IN LESS NOISE THAN PRESENT-DAY JETS.

the stratospheric ozone layer which shields us from harmful solar ultraviolet. However, the weight
of scientific opinion refutes such theories. The experience of twenty years of supersonic military
flight also fails to give cause for alarm. At present, it cannot be proved conclusively that there
will be no noticeable effect. But claims to the contrary are, in the main, mere *peculation, lacking
in foundation and in evidence to support them.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to conclusively settle this question. Thus, a research program is under
way in the DOT. This program has the approval of the President's Environmental Quality Council,
and is led by experts from FSSA, FAA, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies.
The question of atmospheric effects is difficult to answer conclusively because the pertinent quan-
tities-mean temperature, rainfall, ozone content, and the like-fluctuate widely due to natural
causes. These fluctuations are very difficult to predict, and they represent effects far larger than
the SST would create. Thus, a single large thundercloud, common throughout the world, may in-
ject more water vapor into the stratosphere than a fleet of SST's. Three volcanic eruptions in the
last eight years have spewed more pollution (dust and sulfur compounds) into the atmosphere
than have all the activities of mankind through history. Yet even these volcanoes do not appear
to have caused climatic change. Thus, any SST effects may be very difficult to observe-much
less to be identified as producing harmful effects.
One who shares these views is Dr. William W. Kellogg, who headed up the IlIT Study on Critical
Environmental Problems. The conclustions of this study, which pointed to the SST as a cause for
concern, have been claimed by environmentalists to be a major reason for Cancelling the SST pro-
gram. But, Dr. Kellogg has stated that "nowhere have we indicated that we believe SST develop-
ment should be held up pending the results" of studies such as that underway in the Department
of Transportation.
WHAT ABOUT SONIC BOOM? The SST has been attacked on the grounds that if it operated over-
land, its sonic boom-produced by its supersonic speed-would prove a major nuisance and annoy-
ance. But in 1964 the program managers committed the SST project to only over-water supersonic
flight, with supersonic flight also permitted over the uninhabited wastes of the Arctic. The plane
has been designed to operate efficiently while flying subsonically. Predictions of its proftability,
and of the 500 or more planes to be sold, have been based on the avoidance of overland supersonic
flight. In its operations, it will not reach the speed of sound immediately after takeoff, but will
do so 100 miles off the coast, thus protecting most shipping and fishing from the annoyance of
sonic booms.
Will this restriction on overland flight be lifted? The great concern the issue has received is ample
evidence it will not. Neither the manufacturers nor the airlines need such overland flights, and
the strong public reaction that would attend any such proposal will serve to maintain this posi-
tion. Although this restriction has not been written into law, .the manufacturers and airlines
would welcome and support such a law, as an indication of the good faith they have shown over
the sonic-boom issue.
ISN'T THE SST A VERY NOISY AIRPLANE? There are two pertinent types of noise. "Community
noise" is noise made while flying over the community during takeoffs and landings. In this cate-
gory, our SST is only half as noisy as current jets. The reason is that with its powerful engines,
the SST can approach or leave the airport at a steep angle of climb, rather than linger over the
community as do today's jets.
"Sideline noise" is generally confined to the airport proper, and is emitted during the takeoff roll
down the runway. Until recently, program managers have stated, with considerable candor, that
they did not anticipate meeting FAA standards for sideline noise. The FAA standard is 108 EPNDB
equivalent perceived noise-decibels", a standard measure of the psycho-acoustical annoyance of
noise). This is about as noisy aas a loud truckk on the highway. These managers stated they could
do no better than 112 EPNDB, and for this admission the SST was denounced as a noisy airplane.
Sen. Proxmire proclaimed that failure to meet the FAA level would constitute cause for banning

WHO
NEEDS
TH E
SST?7
Airline travelers, for one, and quite a
few of them, too. If 500 SSTs make
three flights a day, being only half-full,
that's still 100 million passengers per
year. That's no "jet set".
After all, in airline operations, speed is
the name of the game. That's why peo-
ple fly, when they could save money
by taking the bus. That's why the early
jets caught on so quick. The SST will
cut flight times by half or more. That's
three hours to Europe, instead of seven
-and less than ten hours to Japan or
across the Pacific, instead of the better
part of a whole day. It means, in flight
times, making the Pacific look like the
Atlantic-and the Atlantic look like a
river. Of course, you still have to take
time getting to and from the airport.
But plenty of people are working on
that problem. That's why we have the
new 12-year, $10 billion program for
mass transit.
People who live near airports will also
appreciate the SST. One does the work
of up to four conventional jets. This
means airports need not expand to
serve larger and larger airline fleets,
gobbling up nearby communities in the
process. Also, the SST takes off and
lands at such steep angles that it does
not linger noisily over the community,
but instead is up and away, taking its
noise along. Unlike current jets, the
SST confines its noise mainly to the
airport itself, where people in the com-
munity will never hear it. And even
this airport noise will meet or better
the new Federal standards, despite the
critics who said "it couldn't be done."
Finally, people who want more social
programs will (in time) see that they
need it, too. These programs have to
get revenues from somewhere. The SST
is that "somewhere." The program
needs about $400 million more to get
off the ground-and then every plane
sold will pay the government a royalty.
Eventually the government will get at
least $1 billion in pure profit on its
investment. That's enough to build 100
large hospitals, 400 schools, 100,000 units
of housing. And that doesn't even
count the $6 to $10 billion in taxes
generated by the SST program.
For the SST will do even more. It will
provide 150,000 new jobs-and every one
of them means taxes to support social
programs, rather than people needing
help from these programs. And, it re-
presents a product which foreign na-
tions will buy-thus putting money in-
to this country, and securing American
jobs, If we don't build it, the airlines
will buy foreign-built airplanes. And
that means money flowing out rather
than in, and European jobs being sup-
ported at the expense of American jobs.
That's why the AFL-CIO has come out
in support of the SST.

THE
PEACEMAKER,
THE SST
Apart from the fact that selfishly, the
SST will benefit those in the aviation
industry, let us consider the effect
such a plan will have on the peaceful
conquest of the earth.
The modern state of Hawaii was jetted
literally and figuratively into the Uni-
ted States. The jet aircraft made know
the glamour of Hawaii to millions of
tourists, who, before the advent of
practically instant transportation, were
compelled to travel laboriously by ship
and train for weeks.
Today no island in the vast Pacific-no
village in the steppes-is beyond the
jet's reach.
The jet binds the peoples in peace. It
makes friends of strangers. The jet has
made it possible for the first time in
world's history for the man of average
means to reach the fartherest end of
the globe. And in a mere matter of
hours.
And if the subsonic jet is already such
a blessing, what then of the supersonic
transport? It will condense still further
the time needed for travel-it will
bring the tourist quicker to his resort,
the businessman quicker to his home,
and it will make the peoples of the
earth realize how truly united they are
in the flesh as well as the spirit.
This shortening of time, this creation
of the supersonic transport-a further
logical step in the advancement of the
airplane-cannot now or in the future
be permanently denied. The eternal
curiosity of man that brought him
from the cave, and the oxcart, will in
the future propel him from planet to
planet.
In the very least, how can' we in all
propriety deny even for a pause in time
the progress of man in the earthly
skies above us?
Hear BOTH SIDES of the
controversy.
Come to a FAAST-ENACT
debate on
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 24
at 7:30 P.M. in Hutchins Hall
at the LAW QUAD
for lIASST
Prof. W. Nelson-Aero Dept.
T. Heppenheimer-A.E.-grad student
D. Fradin-A.E.-president, FASST
for ENACT:
E. Bradley-Enact Pres., grad student
Prof. J. Swan-Natural Resources
Prof. R. Cellarins-Botany
Prof. F. Stafford-Economics
N. Coplan-Institute of Social
Research
Thinks for taking the time to read
our side.
D)AVE FRADI'N
ROBERT DE SARO
JOHN LAFOND
TOM HEPPENHEIMER
DON POUSHA
MIKE HYER
FAAST

r

r-f i

*i,

i

I

I

I

II

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan