pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) (07/22/89)
In article <27875@watmath.waterloo.edu> grwalter@watmath.waterloo.edu (Fred Walter) writes: >I don't see what benefit the space contractors would get out of it. They'd >be giving up something (whatever they gave you); in return they'd get more >people telling them what to do - people who don't have any money to pay >for putting payloads in space. Hopefully, they would be telling themselves what to do. The Space Quest Foundation will be there just to setup up the whole thing. The actual adminestrative corporation would be formed by the contractors. We might help with personnel placement, facilities, etc, but it will be entirely within their control. >I'm interested in doing something, but I don't see the above ever happening. >No company interested in turning a profit will give up something just to get >more administration. If I've misinterpreted something, please let me know. It will definitely never happen unless we try. This is a start point. I plan on doing something, and I think big. If enough corporations are asked, then maybe something will happen. >However, the above does give me some ideas... That's one of the purposes of Space Quest! - Daniel
pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) (07/22/89)
I got some mail in response to my posting, and an interesting point was brought up. Since I want the space contractors to actually own their own space administration corporation, Seth Hollub <poopsie!seth@udel.edu> wrote: >Some things like this are violations of the Anti-Trust Act, I hope >that's not an impediment. I'm not very knowledgeable about the annoying government policies in this area. Does any know for sure? This brings up another point about Space Quest, we need people to help us with matters such as these. Anyone care to spend their one hour a week helping us here? Yes, there are many obstacles, but they are just little details that we can get around somehow. If you're determined enough, you can do anything. - Daniel
pezely@udel.EDU (Dan Pezely) (07/23/89)
Here's a summary of e-mailed replies in reference to my postings about The Space Quest Foundation. I originally quoted Seth Hollub with an incorrect e-mail address. The cocrrect one is <seth@vax.ftp.com>. Sorry. Seth brought up the question of Anti-trust problems, and later shed some more light on it: >Since the advent of R. Reagan and G. Bush in 1980, the vagaries of >the anti-monopoly law have changed to be more liberal. That is, >one can run more of a monopoly than before. Consortia like >Sematech and such are living proof of our ability to form >such economic-social groups. (I think they are helpful for now >on the world market). >Hopefully when we're successful those who follow in our footsteps >will not curse our solution. We'll need a way to dissolve the >consortium when it becomes right & proper to avoid strangling >things NASA-DOD-like. If The Space Quest Foundation just sets up the adminestrative coproration, then there shouldn't be any problems of outside agencies having too much control. * * * From: Marc Ringuette <mnr@daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu>, >I have similar reservations to those of Fred Walter. What role >do you see a volunteer group playing in the scheme of things? That's what we'll need to get things off the ground. Whether we decide to change the status of the volunteers, that can be done later. >It seems to me that requirements for a successful effort are > (a) a good, obvious reason for setting up such an agency > (b) credibility and negotiating skill >What is the reason for its existence, and do you see the skills and >credibility being available? I think that enough qualified people would come forward to help once we're sufficiently organized. >I have an idea which I have based on the skills I see available around >me (physical sciences students): the construction of small satellites >and exploratory probes using cleverness and appropriate use of snazzy >technology. Its answers to the key questions are > (a) the reason: there are lots of un-sexy experiments and exploration > (e.g. search for water on the moon) that just aren't being done, but > are genuinely possible with a small directed effort > (b) the ability: Graduate students are the manpower; university robotics > and physics labs are the location; and very little money is > required. Piggyback space on commercial launches is rumored to > be available but is currently the biggest question mark. I am a sophmore at the University of Delaware. And as I told Marc, I hope to work on such projects when I am in grad school. * * * Keith Henson <hkhenson@cup.portal.com> (if it bounces try keith@toad.com) wrote in responce to my original posting: >>I will do anything I can to live in a space station, or I will die trying! >*I* am making the best effort possible to get into space, *even if it takes >more than a normal life span.* Details on request. I think that I would have lived a full life even if my children's generation was the first to be able to LIVE in space stations. * * * Anyone else wish to comment? - Daniel