peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/01/83)
Regarding the suggestion to refuse funding from military (e.g. ARPA) sources: Though I'm not familiar with the funding situation in the US, my intuition is that such an initiative is too big a jump for scientists not used to voting with their feet in such a way. There appears to be a somewhat milder, but possibly *very* important, alternative, already under way. From the Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada) Sat. Nov. 26, 1983: "BILLIONS TO BE SPENT FOR LASERS IN SPACE, by Wallace Immen" Pres. R. Reagan will announce within 2-3 wks a massive spending program to develop the arsenal of exotic space weapons he suggested in March as a means of countering Soviet missiles, U.S. gov't sources say. The decision would appear to dampen prospects for a permanent U.S. space station and would crush plans for a new program of planetary exploration. ... spending between $18B-$27B over the next 6 yrs on [high-frontier systems] ... that can track and shoot down up to 1,000 ICBM's simultaneously ... weapons capable of generating laser and particle beams ... development of dozens of small missiles that could shoot down warheads [missed by the high-frontier systems] ... no unsolvable technical obstacle to the concept ... A group of influential scientists has tried unsuccessfully to persuade Mr. Reagan to give up the concept ... Building weapons satellites and getting them into place could cost more than $100B over the next 2 decade ... Robert Bowman, a retired USAF space weapons planner who now heads the Institute for Space and Security Studies in Washington D.C. [says that cost of the new systems is the least problem and that the new weapon systems envisaged] "have staggering technical problems" "All violate one or more existing treaties. All are extremely vulnerable. All are subject to a variety of countermeasures. All could be made impotent by alternative offensive missiles and therefore would be likely to reignite the numerical arms race in offensive weapons." ---- Here's the response by some scientists that seems worth publicizing ----- An increasing number of physicists and engineers are protesting against the exotic weapons plans. Jack Ruina, an electrical eng. at MIT, told the NY Times this week he expects increasing numbers of scientists to refuse to develop equipment for the space weapons system. "There's a silent group out there; I'd say it's a majority, that says: ` We're working for a living here, but we think that what's going on is crazy.' " Groups similar to the Science for Peace organization in Canada are forming in the U.S. to petition for an end to space weapons spending. Several scientific organizations have issued statements of concern that hundreds of billions of dollars will eventually be spent on space weapons and this will drain the life out of science research not related to military needs. Mr. DeLauer [U.S. Defence Undersec'y for Research & Eng.] said studies show that there are about 8 technical problems that must be solved before space weapons can be made practical. Each one of them would require teams of scientists and engineers as large as those that developed the U.S. moon-landing program, he believes. Defence spending has already eliminated almost all of the planetary research programs of [N.A.S.A.] over the next decade. ... ----------------------- end of excerpts ------------------------------- I'm sorry I can't post the whole article, but I didn't have time, and it would violate copyright. It would seem that a declaration not to work on space weapons is something that might have widespread support. Now is the time to do it, before a lot of vested interests are set up. p. rowley, U. Toronto
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/04/83)
It never ceases to amaze me that sensible people can actually assume
that if X dollars are not spent on weapons, they will be spent on
science. Nonsense. If X dollars are not spent on weapons, they will
go to some other government money sink. In the very unlikely event
that the government can't find some other rathole to pour them down,
the dollars will be left in private hands by cutting taxes a little
in hopes of stimulating the economy. People who protest against
missile-defense systems on the grounds that they will prevent the space
station, or cripple the planetary program, or hurt scientific research,
are making fools of themselves. If any of the latter are going to be
hurt by reduced funding, they will be hurt whether a major initiative
in missile defense is undertaken or not!
"Defence spending has already eliminated almost all of the planetary
research programs of [N.A.S.A.] over the next decade."
Utter and total nonsense. One could, with rather more justice, say
that the Space Shuttle development process eliminated most of the
planetary program, but this too implies that no Space Shuttle would have
meant more planetary spending. No way. We are already seeing this now
as the Shuttle development budget starts to wind down -- the money is
***NOT*** going back into the science programs, it is being trimmed
off altogether. Space has not lost funding because of defence, it has
lost funding because it did not have sufficient backing at high levels
of government. It would have lost funding even if DoD had been abolished
completely in (say) 1975.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrypeterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/04/83)
People who use phrases like "fools" and "utter
and total nonsense" should be very careful to read that which they
object to. Had Mr. Spencer done so and read "High Frontier, What
Scientists Can Do" carefully, he would have seen TWO resource-oriented
objections to the program (he picked the minor one to comment on) and he
wouldn't have submitted his rather myopic response. Consider:
- the monetary cost
I agree that planetary research funding is largely indepen-
dent of defence spending. But this is *not* a major point.
- the human resources costs
high-frontier research programs will take large number of highly
skilled scientists that would otherwise work on other scientific
pursuits. There would be an INEVITABLE drain on other programs,
a drain not subject to the whims of appropriations as you can't
create scientific manpower instantly from higher taxes.
Of course, pro-science organizations are bound to decry the money spent
on it also, in order to increase the chances that they will get money
for their own interests-- that is what special interest groups do.
But from a more neutral viewpoint, one sees that the high-frontier
program, apart from being a blatant provocation (How would you like it if
the USSR built space-based lasers to negate the US strategic force?),
will inevitably consume a good deal of scientific manpower, a resource
that is claimed to be in short supply (and NOT something that can be
given back to taxpayers or used to reduce the deficit).
It is time that we realized that in terms of nuclear arms, the technology
is the problem and not the solution. We have weapons too hot to handle
and they have to be controlled. The answer is not to build more powerful
weapons but to attempt to solve the social problems that created the need
for those weapons. Would that Reagan had a "let's have a Manhattan project"
attitude to diplomatic pursuits (as can be done, witness the Camp David
agreements, imperfect as they are).
peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,ubc-vision,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
{cwruecmp,duke,linus,decvax,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterrlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/06/83)
Remember that a government spends money for three reasons: Because it has to. Because it wants to. and Because it has it to spend. Of the three reasons, the third is undoubtably the most shabby. However, I have yet to see a budget outlined under these categories. I wonder what percentage of the current Candaian or American budget is spent for the third shabby reason? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/06/83)
Yes, it's me again. Peter Rowley objects to my rather strong language
about the "High Frontier, What Scientists Can Do" proposal, and suggests
that I read it more carefully. I'm afraid I have to suggest that *he*
should read *my* posting more carefully. I said *nothing* about the
merits or demerits of space-based ABM systems (although I do have some
quite strong feelings on the subject... more later in this message).
What I harshly criticized was the idiocy of people who claim that, if
project X (which they oppose) could only be scrapped, then project
Y (which they support) would have lots more funding. I'm afraid I must
continue to insist that this is, yes, "utter and total nonsense", and
that the supporters of the H.F.,W.S.C.D. proposal have blundered badly
in relying so heavily on such arguments. They are promising what they
cannot deliver. Just because the resources in question are not spent
on the awful ugly evil project X does not mean that they will be spent
on the good beautiful lovable project Y. Quite the contrary, it makes
it less likely that they will be spent at all.
The above applies to *both* money and skilled manpower. The two tend
to be strongly correlated in this universe of discourse, because most
of the project Y's are also government-funded, and the allocation of
manpower to them necessarily requires the allocation of money first.
People who claim we have a desperate shortage of skilled manpower are
not paying attention to how miserably we misuse the resources we've got.
We do have a shortage of high-quality people willing to do boring work
for low pay in unpleasant conditions, but what else is new?
A further weakness in Peter's arguments -- now we come to the merits
or lack thereof of the HFWSCD concept -- is that it falls apart if
missile defence *isn't* a task several times the difficulty of the
Apollo project. Many competent people think it isn't. My own view
on the matter is that we clearly need a few more experimental facts
and a lot less computerized guesswork and theoretical pontification.
In fact, one can argue (fairly persuasively) that the tendency toward
guesswork and pontification is the main reason why military projects
do get so astronomically expensive. The few within-schedule under-budget
and-it-works-too military projects (yes, there have been some) have
been the ones that focused firmly on getting working hardware to try out
before making big tough irrevocable decisions.
In short, neither a big crash program nor a disavowal of the whole
concept is appropriate in our present state of ignorance. What we need
is a modest program directed at getting some experimental answers.
Note that this does *not* mean merely continuing the existing research
efforts, which are just as prone to guesswork and pontification as
most of their opponents. We need *experimental* *facts*, not best
guesses from biased people. This probably requires that it be a
special program imposed on the military from above; the standard
military R+D system just isn't capable of doing this sort of thing.
Scientists are supposedly in business to do exactly this kind of work:
get the facts and never mind the preconceptions. But the HFWSCD plea
is just the other way around, arguing from preconceptions that any try
at producing facts is inappropriate. Understand, I am not *totally*
opposed to the HFWSCD effort -- it would be a major mistake to make a
big, expensive, hard-to-change commitment when we don't know whether
we could make it work -- but a more modest commitment to getting the
facts is both important and urgent. HFWSCD is not making any attempt
to distinguish between the two, since the calls for funding cutoffs
and refusal to participate make no mention of the distinction.
To sum up, turn it the other way around: Are you so certain that it
*won't* work that you are willing to boycott something that just might
be the salvation of our civilization? If you *are* that certain -- just
what basis do you have for that certainty, when even the experts are
hotly debating the point? We need to *know*.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrywetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (12/06/83)
Why is it that when someone says that a move into space technology research would be a good idea, others assume that they mean the development of weapons? That is not what advocates of the "high frontier" scenario for the future are saying. They are advocating the opening of space frontiers for the good of all mankind. Space is the future, like it or not. I keep seeing the doom and gloomers saying that resources are being depleted. WELL, where are new resources to come from? SPACE. The moon, according to tests of samples brought back, is rich in minerals that are in short supply here on earth. We have the technology, why not put it to good use. Technology is not limited to those high in their ivory towers, it is the beginning step in a series of events that eventually benefit great numbers of people. The benefits of space technology are not going to fall out of the sky (no joke intended). We have to go after them with all the energy and purpose possible. Space projects, on a grand scale such as NASA ran during the Moon Probes, would be an economic boon and would benefit the entire world in some manner or another. New studies in energy, communications, health, agronomy, electronics, metals, fabrication, plastics, computers, and dozens of other areas would be of benefit before the project even got off the ground, so to speak. So, before condeming space projects to the defense spending category, think about how it could be of some benefit. When the auto was invented, people thought the horse was the ultimate in transportation, and condemed it as a waste of time. I'm not defending the auto, but it was the same kind of thinking then. Use some vision. Look beyond what seems to be a way to develop weapons. Try being positive about ideas before shooting them down. T C Wheeler (Space Cadet, 3rd Class)
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (12/07/83)
Short and to the point. NASA is increasingly being used by the military for military purposes. The Space Shuttle wasn't developed to bring tourists to the Moon. So don't tell me not to assume space funding == military funding. That's the way it's gone over the past ten years. As to where resources are going to come from, in the world I want to live in they're going to come from people realizing that throwing everything away is wrong. They're going to come from a much more equitable distribution of what we have, rather than an endless quest for more, more, more and damn anything (and anybody) who get's in the way. If that happens, we'll all live much better than most do now. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/08/83)
Space ... The Final Frontier. One thing we may have to look forward to is just before the big bomb drops, maybe the human race will go through a change over to a more ordered, logical way of life. The Vulcans were able to do it, and look at them now.
dp@astrovax.UUCP (Debbie Padgett) (12/13/83)
I agree completely with Wheeler's favorable opinions about the peaceful use of space, but I think there is an understandable mixup here about the term "High Frontier". As far as I know, the phrase "the High Frontier" was originally copyrighted by Princeton's Prof. G.K.O'Neill as the title of his book about space manufacturing and colonization. However, a group of old Defense Department brass have, within the past two years, begun to use the phrase "high frontier" to describe their space-based ABM system proposal. Unfortunately, these people never obtained permission to use this copyrighted name and have ignored the complaints of SSI (the Space Studies Institute, headed by O'Neill) about their illegal use of a book's title. The "High Frontier" defense group claims that it had never heard of the book (as if that justifies their use of the phrase as the title of their own book, films, etc). The last that I heard was that SSI was going to take the "High Frontier" group to court, which this small organization can ill afford. Incidently, the military strategy version of "high frontier" originally included plans for the economic development of space, presumably to appeal to space program enthusiasts. As soon as Reagan announced his support for a space-based defense system, High Frontier dropped the civilian space program buildup like a hot potato; I wouldn't trust these guys. I'll take O'Neill's or my own version of a CIVILIAN space program anytime. dp
dp@astrovax.UUCP (Debbie Padgett) (12/13/83)
Neither was it developed to deploy particle beam weapons. NASA's Shuttle program was and is designed to deploy and service a manned civilian space station. Obviously it can be used for many things, but so can any transportation system. If NASA has had to seek moral support from the DoD (but not money; the STS is purely NASA funded), you can blame Walter Mondale and William Proxmire for trying to eviscerate the civilian space program during the 70's. Pray tell me, what is the military intending to do with Spacelab and Space Telescope? dp