keithl@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) (01/20/89)
Whether or not the NSS board goals are "better or worse" than the original L5 Society, Henry is absolutely right about the disappearance of space settlement as a major goal. That was what L5 was started for. Then the "milestones" became the "goals". Now the original goals are considered immature and embarassing. There are a lot of organizations out there with impractical goals. Some of them have trillion dollar budgets and nuclear weapons. L5 seemed relatively harmless, and collected some of the best oddball geniuses it has ever been my pleasure to meet. It has been taken over by suit-and-tie people with suit-and-tie goals, who brag about their contacts and their ability to "get something done". They changed the definition of "something done" in order to "succeed". For you folks that prefer the new "something done", well, I'm glad you have the NSS to serve you. Personally, I want a divorce. NSS can keep the suit-and-tie folk, the congressional lobbying, and the short term goals. I need to spend some time hanging around visionary dreamers, practical or not; it helps me survive the shrivel-souled bean counters and smothering totalitarian fools I see every day. Anyone want to start the L4 Society? Membership strictly limited to people who want to GO, practical or not. Handicapped access available, no gravity well too deep! Ad Astra, goddammit, AD ASTRA! -- Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (01/26/89)
In article <3225@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, keithl@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes: > I need to spend some time hanging around visionary > dreamers, practical or not; it helps me survive the shrivel-souled > bean counters and smothering totalitarian fools I see every day. > > Anyone want to start the L4 Society? Membership strictly limited > to people who want to GO, practical or not. Handicapped access > available, no gravity well too deep! > > Ad Astra, goddammit, AD ASTRA! > > -- > Keith Lofstrom ...!tektronix!vice!keithl keithl@vice.TEK.COM > MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-4052 AMEN! I say let's just go! Dammit! To hell with all the practical 'reasons' for going to the asteroids or whatnot. Mankind will eventually have to go out into space. curiousity is one of our greatest drives. and I think, it makes a perfectly good reason to go out there. Just to see what the ____ is out there. So we can say, "Yea, we did it". Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old: I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth decided to blow itself up with the big bomb. besides, arguing about what will we get out of space travel is fruitless. before we went to the moon, did we know that the space program would bring us microwave ovens, computer chips, vcr's and let's not forget Space Food Sticks??? Heck with it. Just say GO! _______________________________________________________________________________ John Sparks // Amiga | corpane : sparks@corpane a.k.a \X/ UUCP | blitter : john@blitter (preferred; path below) RedHawk ~~~~~~~~~~~~| {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!disk!blitter!john D.R.A.G.O.N.| >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru -5406 << Ye Quote: Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it. _______________________________________________________________________________
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (01/27/89)
In article <258@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >AMEN! I say let's just go! Dammit! To hell with all the practical >'reasons' for going to the asteroids or whatnot. Never mind rational thought! Let's just stampede! >Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old: >I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth >decided to blow itself up with the big bomb. This is not inconsistent with a program that would currently emphasize unmanned exploration. We are very far away from being able to set up self sufficient ET colonies. A desire to have people in space at some point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in the present. >besides, arguing about what will we get out of space travel is fruitless. >before we went to the moon, did we know that the space program would >bring us microwave ovens, computer chips, vcr's and let's not forget >Space Food Sticks??? This spinoff argument is bogus. We'd have had all of these anyway (expect perhaps Space Food Sticks; small loss). I believe studies have failed to show any widespread technological impetus directly attributable to the space program. That does not prevent the argument from being repeated by PR hacks and the credulous. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
hkhenson@cup.portal.com (H Keith Henson) (01/28/89)
John Sparks responding to Keith Lofstrom states
"Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old:
I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth
decided to blow itself up with the big bomb. besides, arguing about what
we get out of space travel is fruitless . . "
I agree, but given nanotechnology, why settle for less than what we really
want, interstellar exploration. The way NASA does things, nanotechnology
may be much closser than a return to the moon. If anyone want to see it
I can post or email a 30k byte article called Megascale Engineering and
issue invitations to a party on the far side of the galaxy in about 200,000
Command:try
years.
Keith Henson (a founder of the lamented L5 Society.)
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (02/02/89)
First of all my first posting was a rough attempt to be humorous, but I now realize that there are many 'stuffed shirts' out there who wouldn't know a joke if it bit them on the ass. for instance: In article <1989Jan27.075350.2215@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > In article <258@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > > >AMEN! I say let's just go! Dammit! To hell with all the practical > >'reasons' for going to the asteroids or whatnot. > > Never mind rational thought! Let's just stampede! > > >Or if you need a pratical reason ... how about the old: > >I would rather be in a (self sufficeint) Mars colony when Earth > >decided to blow itself up with the big bomb. > > This is not inconsistent with a program that would currently emphasize > unmanned exploration. We are very far away from being able to set up > self sufficient ET colonies. A desire to have people in space at some > point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in > the present. > > >besides, arguing about what will we get out of space travel is fruitless. > >before we went to the moon, did we know that the space program would > >bring us microwave ovens, computer chips, vcr's and let's not forget > >Space Food Sticks??? > > This spinoff argument is bogus. We'd have had all of these anyway > (expect perhaps Space Food Sticks; small loss). I believe studies have > failed to show any widespread technological impetus directly attributable > to the space program. That does not prevent the argument from being > repeated by PR hacks and the credulous. > > Paul F. Dietz Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will. especially if people keep thinking like you!!!!!!!! The spinoff is not bogus. sure we probably would have had all these things eventually. but to deny that they were invented sooner because of space travel is bogus also. When you have hundreds of engineers with a set goal to reach and obsticles in the way, they tend to discover/invent new technology to tear away these obsticles. hardly anything gets invented until it needs to be. but once it is here you can be sure that there will be lots of other uses for it, spinoffs and such. go ahead flame me! All this bean counting is making me bored anyway. _______________________________________________________________________________ John Sparks // Amiga | corpane : sparks@corpane a.k.a \X/ UUCP | blitter : john@blitter (preferred; path below) RedHawk ~~~~~~~~~~~~| {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!disk!blitter!john D.R.A.G.O.N.| >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru -5406 << Ye Quote: Cheerio-Magnetics: The tendency of the last few cheerios in a bowl of milk to cling together for survival. _______________________________________________________________________________
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/04/89)
In article <293@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >Wake up Paul! you aren't going into space, I doubt if I ever will. I *know* I'm not going into space -- for god's sake, why should I *want* to? To spend my children's inheritance on an orbital vacation in my old age (I'm now 29)? > especially if people keep thinking like you!!!!!!!! Are you saying I should tailor my beliefs according to whether you like the implications? Do your own wishful thinking. >The spinoff is not bogus. sure we probably would have had all these things >eventually. but to deny that they were invented sooner because of space >travel is bogus also. When you have hundreds of engineers with a set goal >to reach and obsticles in the way, they tend to discover/invent new >technology to tear away these obsticles. hardly anything gets invented >until it needs to be. but once it is here you can be sure that there will >be lots of other uses for it, spinoffs and such. I have not heard a good argument that computers, ICs, etc. were advanced by the space program. All I've heard is handwaving about space R&D somehow being special in posing hard problems. Considering the remoteness of space from everyday life, the argument could be made that space technology is likely to have few spinoffs. What I've seen in NASA "Spinoff" publications is rather pathetic. I can make a plausible, if not convincing, argument that spending on space has slowed the development of technology. Spending on NASA has helped increase government spending, in several ways. First, it directly consumed funds. Secondly, congressional supporters of NASA have to buy votes by supporting the pet projects of other congressmen -- "go along to get along." Third, the apparent success of Apollo led to a better environment for other large government programs. Increased budgets ==> increased deficits or taxes ==> suppression of investment (through increases in effective interest rates) ==> slowing down the development of technology. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/89)
In article <1989Jan27.075350.2215@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >... A desire to have people in space at some >point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in >the present. Unless, of course, one actually wants to get started on having people in space someday, as opposed to postponing it indefinitely. If one wants to get started on it any time within the next few decades, it is not too early to start doing it experimentally to lay the groundwork. If one wants to postpone it a few centuries, of course, any work on it is pointless, since it will be possible to buy it from the Soviets long before then. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/09/89)
>>... A desire to have people in space at some >>point in the future does not necessarily justify manned spaceflight in >>the present. >Unless, of course, one actually wants to get started on having people in >space someday, as opposed to postponing it indefinitely. If one wants to >get started on it any time within the next few decades, it is not too >early to start doing it experimentally to lay the groundwork. If one wants >to postpone it a few centuries, of course, any work on it is pointless, >since it will be possible to buy it from the Soviets long before then. Cut out the freshman debating tactics, Henry. Did I suggest we not put men in space for centuries? Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters? No. I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot. Developing better boosters is entirely orthogonal to whether we put men in space now. Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense. However, I will disagree that there is much that men can do in space in the next few decades. Launch costs are not going to come down that much in that time. I don't believe private launchers are going to save all that much, perhaps a factor of ten; the europeans don't even believe that much is possible with rockets. The history of launchers shows that the cost of a launcher is usually lower on the sketchpad than on the launch pad. I reject the facile government is to blame argument. About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when the Soviet space program goes nowhere. The Soviet Union is in deep economic trouble. The standard of living has gone down in the last decade. Gorby's reforms are a failure. And, frankly, the "russians are coming!" cry has been used too much. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/15/89)
In article <1989Feb9.100756.22055@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Cut out the freshman debating tactics, Henry. I will if you will. >Did I suggest we not put men in space for centuries? Basically, yes. In the same way that a call for a cost/benefit analysis is usually really a call for an excuse to kill the project (since costs are usually much more quantifiable than benefits), a call to do something "when it's appropriate" is usually really a call to forget it entirely. If not, please name a date, or cite specific criteria that would indicate that the time is at hand. >Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters? No, but you didn't suggest we do research on the physiological problems of long-term spaceflight, which is the other real issue for man in space. Stopping manned spaceflight means largely stopping such research, since we have no faithful ground-based simulation of space effects. (Bed rest is a partial simulation but only a partial one.) >...I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot. Except in preparation for having them in space tomorrow. > ...Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense. I partially agree, but only partially. Satellite deployment clearly does not require a manned flight; the presence of a crew is occasionally of some small use, but not often and it's not important. If you believe that satellite deployment is the only important use of spaceflight, then of course manned spaceflight is largely PR. >However, I will disagree that there is much that men can do in space >in the next few decades. Launch costs are not going to come down that >much in that time. I don't believe private launchers are going to >save all that much, perhaps a factor of ten; the europeans don't even >believe that much is possible with rockets... Let us be specific: *Arianespace* does not believe that much is possible with rockets. I can think of several reasons for Arianespace to say that, only one of which is the possibility that it's true. And even a factor of ten would make an enormous difference in many ways. I've met people who believe much greater savings are possible, if only one stops thinking of space launchers as military missiles. (All existing space launchers, Ariane included, are basically missiles at heart, despite the labels saying "civilian space launcher". Not one of them has been conceived from scratch by people interested in low costs rather than mil-spec conformance. [One doesn't find such people working for government aerospace contractors.]) > The history of launchers >shows that the cost of a launcher is usually lower on the sketchpad than >on the launch pad... Agreed... but some of the sketchpad costs are low enough to make one wonder just how much they would inflate on the launch pad. >About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when >the Soviet space program goes nowhere. The Soviet Union is in deep economic >trouble. The standard of living has gone down in the last decade. Gorby's >reforms are a failure... I seem to recall the same comments about the Soviet economy being made a decade or more ago, and the Soviets have made more than a little progress in space since then. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo) (02/15/89)
In article <1989Feb14.180253.18858@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >please name a date, or cite specific criteria that would indicate >that the time is at hand. Criteria: A manned mission or base is desirable when 1) It can return discoveries and/or resources, unrelated to further manned spaceflight, that are equivalent or better than what can be done by spending the same money on unmanned missions. OR 2) It cannot quite meet criteria (1), but the costs are borne by the mission promoters, not taxpayers or stockholders. Time line: Very uncertain. Depends on the research we do *now*. (This is an optimistic scenario, based on the assumption that we spend the entire current NASA budget, $13 billion/year, on research and probes, through the year 2000). 1990's: A $30 billion space station does not come close to what you can do with unmanned probes for $30 billion (return data from nearly every corner of the solar system, and distribute it to researchers and citizens around the world). Launch costs are far too expensive to be payed for by anybody but taxpayers and stockholders. 2000-2010: Space manufacturing and initial mining, like today's space communications and remote sensing, will have to be automated if it is to be priced low enough for Earth markets. Tourism may provide a commercial rationale for manned missions in LEO, if launch costs are brought down far enough. 2010-2020: Automated space mining and manufacturing will provide an infrastructure that makes manned forays into space much cheaper. Tourism and limited on-site maintence of remote mining operations (mostly Mars, asteroids, Galilean moons). Space travelers will rely on air, fuel, water, food, shelter, etc. made by robots in space from space materials. 2020+ Due to the now massive, solar-system wide industrial infrastructure, manned spaceflight becomes cheap enough for long-term stays and settlement. Settlements occur for political or religious reasons more than economic. In other words, criteria (2) above, financing carried out by the promoters and not the public, is now economically viable, not due to return on investment, but due to the cost of investment being outweighed by political or religious considerations. If we persist in spending our finite budgets on Man in Space Now, the scenario becomes much bleaker. Important research on mining and manufacturing operations, automation, and the space environment will go undone; most of the solar system's resources will remain undiscovered. The result will be that large-scale mining and manufacturing in the solar system are delayed by many decades, and with them, any manned presence beyond multi- billion dollar romps by a few lucky individuals. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) (02/15/89)
>>Did I suggest we not put men in space for centuries? >Basically, yes. In the same way that a call for a cost/benefit analysis >is usually really a call for an excuse to kill the project (since costs >are usually much more quantifiable than benefits), a call to do something >"when it's appropriate" is usually really a call to forget it entirely. Even if this were true, it would not imply forgeting manned spaceflight for centuries. The time constant on technological change is shorter than that. >>Did I suggest we not do research on better boosters? >No, but you didn't suggest we do research on the physiological problems of >long-term spaceflight, which is the other real issue for man in space. >Stopping manned spaceflight means largely stopping such research, since >we have no faithful ground-based simulation of space effects. (Bed rest >is a partial simulation but only a partial one.) It is my opinion that long-term manned spaceflight is not justified for the near term, so I don't see the value of this research. How people react to microgravity is not one of the burning issues in biology. >>...I said that having people in space today doesn't matter a whole lot. >Except in preparation for having them in space tomorrow. That depends on *when* they're going to be in space. Tomorrow, or forty years from now? >> ...Today's manned spaceflight is largely PR nonsense. >If you believe that >satellite deployment is the only important use of spaceflight, then of >course manned spaceflight is largely PR. What other uses are you proposing? Space manufacturing in low orbit? As Gerard O'Neill said (on TV), it's largely a PR stunt. Satellite repair? At current launch costs that's not feasible. Both of these would benefit from reductions in launch cost; I don't see how they would benefit from knowledge of the biological effects of long term weightlessness. >>About the Soviets: I think folks are going to be in for a rude surprise when >>the Soviet space program goes nowhere. The Soviet Union is in deep economic >>trouble. The standard of living has gone down in the last decade. Gorby's >>reforms are a failure... > >I seem to recall the same comments about the Soviet economy being made a >decade or more ago, and the Soviets have made more than a little progress >in space since then. I don't recall that. However, I don't believe the Soviet standard of living was declining at that time. Also, the Soviet government was not at that time in such a turmoil of reform. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu It is interesting to note the curious mental attitude of scientists working on "hopeless" subjects. Contrary to what one might at first suspect, they are all buoyed up by irrepressible optimism. I believe there is a simple explanation for this. Anyone without such optimism simply leaves the field and takes up some other line of work. Only the optimists remain. So one has the curious phenomenon that workers in subjects in which the prize is big but the prospects of success very small always appear very optimistic. And this in spite of the fact that, although plenty appears to be going on, they never seem to get appreciably nearer their goal. Francis Crick, "What Mad Pursuit"
PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) (02/16/89)
I'm disappointed that I've heard of no objective studies of the correlation between the ratio of manned vs. unmanned spending and public support. What interests people the most, by far, is people. There will always be exceptions, and people who sublimate that tendency in favor of knowing about other *things*, like planets, and most of them are scientists or of scientific turn of mind, which doubtless applies to most SPACE Digest readers, but the majority of the voting public - I assert - would much rather watch pictures of people standing on Mars than landscapes of Ganymede. They lost interest in the Apollo missions because the astronauts weren't doing anything *new*, as far as they were concerned, even though we know there was more science performed. They lost interest in the shuttle missions up to #25 because the astronauts were doing the same thing. What will interest the public more than anything else is people doing things that people haven't done before, which is a darn good argument for not wasting money sending astronauts up on shuttles which don't need them. So what is the strength of the connection (people pioneering in space) => (public support for space endeavors) => (public support for congressional action) => (congressional funding for space activities)? I wish there was more to go on than just opinion. We might find out that we could get more money for *all* kinds of space activities in the long run by doing whatever it took to put people on Mars (in prime time, natch). That connection certainly didn't seem very strong after the Apollo missions; I hadn't moved to this country then, so I have only hearsay that the Nixon administration decided it was tough luck for space whatever the American people thought. What *was* the mood of the American people at that time? Was their popular support for more space activity or not? Was there as much as there is now? Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)