trc@houca.UUCP (10/17/83)
Response to Scott Preece: Scott - I hope you did not intentionally quote me out of context - if you read my original note again, you will see that the $10,000,000 would have been used to "sponsor research into space technology, with an eye towards grabbing up some basic patents". That is a far cry from an attempt to "establish a space project". And regardless of the fact that it might only cost $10 per person, if those people dont want their money spent that way, how does the government claim to be justified in doing so? And even if the goverment is "smart" enough to know better than all those people, why should it not just take an "advocacy" stance? (I would oppose even that, but at least it cuts the amount spent way back.) Would you want the government to spend $1E9 to research astrology or reincarnation? I agree that there is more validity to going into space - but does that justify forcing someone to support a "pet" project? I do agree with you on one point - it would "involve huge legal hassles over whether [the very biggest companies] should be allowed to cooperate that way." What is the source of those legal hassles? The very government that you say is the only one that could manage to get us into space. Drop all those restrictions, and *then* see if there is any interest in a space project, combining efforts. If the government *needs* space (as for national defense purposes) it would certainly be valid for it to tax to pay for it. But it should not do it just because the private sector "cant" do it. In fact, I would propose a general rule of thumb - any time that a project is too big for anyone but the government, the government has gotten too big. Finally, one last argument - that of exponentiating. Government efforts are non-profit, and so they can only add $X to the development of space, each year. Private efforts would be for-profit. So, perhaps there would only be $.0X invested the first year, but it would build up. You know the old story of the boy offered $1.00 more a day, or $.01, $.02, $.04 ..... In the case of the government, it is even worse - the boy would just get $1.00 each day, with few increases, and cuts likely at exactly the points of greatest need. Would you prefer linear or exponential growth? Tom Craver houca!trc
preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/21/83)
#R:houca:-40900:uicsl:10700050:000:3234 uicsl!preece Oct 20 09:38:00 1983 [This discussion has nothing much to do with SF and would be better placed in net.space, but here it began, so here it remains...] if you read my original note again, you will see that the $10,000,000 would have been used to "sponsor research... ---------- Well, the way you phrased it did not really limit the scope of the investment to the preceding sentence, but even granting your intent, $10M won't buy an awful lot of research, either. I'd be happy to see somebody do this, and I'd probably invest, if it looked like they were doing something likely to be productive. ---------- And regardless of the fact that it might only cost $10 per person, if those people dont want their money spent that way, how does the government claim to be justified in doing so? ---------- Because the government consists of our elected REPRESENTATIVES. Read that word carefully and remember it's supposed to be taken literally. The people gathered in congress are there to act on your behalf. That's what they're for. ---------- I do agree with you on one point - it would "involve huge legal hassles over whether [the very biggest companies] should be allowed to cooperate that way." What is the source of those legal hassles? The very government that you say is the only one that could manage to get us into space. ---------- Would you really like to drop the anti-trust laws? They really were created in response to serious abuses. Do you think AT&T would have let you connect your non-Bell modem to their wires without those laws? It's very hard (read IMPOSSIBLE) to recast those laws so that they automatically permit innovative joint ventures without opening up opportunities for abuse. Given my choice between the liberal tendency to regulate corporations and the conservative tendency to regulate people, I'll choose the former. The corporations have a degree of power that scares me. ---------- I would propose a general rule of thumb - any time that a project is too big for anyone but the government, the government has gotten too big. ... Government efforts are non-profit, and so they can only add $X to the development of space, each year. Private efforts would be for-profit. So, ... but it would build up. ---------- The simple, obvious difference is that a government can use the leverage it has, due to the number of shareholders it has, to spread huge risks out. Private industry doesn't have the freedom to risk immense amounts of money unless the return is virtually guaranteed. Space is not yet that secure an investment. Drug companies would not have spent the money it cost to build the shuttle just to test free fall electrophoresis. Now that it appears to work, they're interested in developing facilities in space. I think the United States should build a space station and make its facilities available to private industry, for limited periods of time, for the cost of operation (that is, the whole country swallows the start-up costs of building the station). After a specified time a commercial venture would have to leave. If space industry works, those successful ventures could get facilities built, because the risk would then be reasonable. scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/23/83)
#R:houca:-40900:uiuccsb:15500006:000:192 uiuccsb!eich Oct 21 05:50:00 1983 Gee, I didn't know that I was a share-holder in the Federal Government, Inc. Can I sell my stock before April 15th (and where are my dividends?) Maybe this exchange belongs in net.politics.