peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/11/83)
TC Wheeler feels that the High Frontier program would be a step towards exploring the rest of the solar system and mining its resources (e.g those of the moon). I'd like to believe this too, but while I can see the possibility of technical advances NOT related to space exploration coming from this program, I just can't see how it will help us explore the universe. No space station is involved, so there won't be a natural launch point for interplanetary flights or the basis for industry-in-space operations (making alloys that can only be manufactured in 0G for example). The US would only be putting up weapons in space, just another earth-orbit- bound payload and not something that would further exploration (as far as I have heard-- does anyone know of any concrete ways in which exploration would be advanced?) If you are convinced that (a) the High Frontier program will further exploration and (b) will not so destabilize the nuclear balance of power so as to render the question of exploration academic (we can't explore if we're dead or have an economy that's been shattered by nuclear war), then you are in the happy position of having the leader of your country support a project you think will do some good. I firmly think, based on arguments in this and other articles in this group, that both (a) and (b) are false, however, and that High Frontier is a big mistake. If you want us to explore space (I sure do!), lobby for a space station or other program that really does further exploration while not threatening the explorers. It's appropriate at this point to mention one arms-race solution based on viewing it mostly as a question of economics. The solution is to build a space station. This will keep the defence contractors happy by giving them something huge to build, will help the economy by supporting industry-in-space, will certainly further exploration, and could probably be easily sold as being in the interests of national security. The key to this scheme is that the space station project would draw capital and, especially, industrial plant and manpower away from the arms race, depriving it of its economic steam. Nations would reduce arms levels, bilaterally, so they could spend the money on space stations and reap the economic benefits from them. This is too simplistic an analysis, I'm sure, but is interesting as an example of looking at the arms race in economic terms. p. rowley, U. Toronto
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (12/20/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-292100:ucbesvax:7500063:000:1529 ucbesvax!turner Dec 13 13:24:00 1983 Peter Rowley almost has me reversing my stand on whether to pursue off- planet development before or after settling the nuclear arms-race question. He does this by presenting a solution in economic terms--that enough funding for peaceful uses of space will draw talent and money away from "defensive" uses of space. It is, as he admits, a little simplistic. Will increased funding for peaceful uses automatically result in less for the military uses? This question is more political than economic. Quite possibly, Reagan will push for (and get) increased outlays for *both*. Of course, there is nothing seriously planned for peaceful uses of space that nearly approaches the scale of DoD megadeath schemes. So again, space seems to come down to plowshares vs. swords--essentially a moralistic or ideological way of looking at it, with no economically determined program. HOW will a generally peaceful approach to space programs be achieved? I guess the big hope is that domestic industrial uses of near- orbit technology will suddenly start paying for themselves so fast that they will draw talent away DoD-funded programs, leaving DoD starved of the real capital of high-tech--fast neurons. (Money, they will never run out of.) Sounds good, but I'm not sure I buy it. Even the Right Stuff quails before the Last Bug--and space technology is nothing if not complex. And recall that time-to-market even for proven ideas is almost always about 5 years. Is that enough time? --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)