brody@eos.UUCP (Adam Brody) (08/22/88)
The following letter is being prepared for mass distribution. Please make comments and criticisms. The final copy will be reposted after all comments have been assimilated. Thank you in advance. "The exploration of space will go ahead whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space." President Kennedy said that over twenty-five years ago and those words remain just as true today. In the early 1960's, the civilian space budget was one percent of the GNP and now the NASA budget is about half of what it was then in constant dollars. This downward trend is foolish and harmful and should be reversed. Millions of jobs have been created by the space program and trillions of dollars have poured into the economy as a result. For every dollar invested in the space program, seven dollars are reinvested in the economy making space the best national technology catalyst investment the Nation has made. This country has also benefited from many spinoff technologies which have improved the lives of millions of people. Recent spinoffs include a device which improves the vision of individuals with low-vision eyesight, a cornea optical topographical scan system for assistance with eye surgery, end effectors for amputees, breathing apparatus for firefighters, fire resistant textiles, digital imaging and digital radiography for medical purposes, and a device that reduces pollution in the air. Hundreds of technologies originally developed for the space program have found applications in the medical and other industries. Millions of lives have been saved by accurate weather and storm prediction by satellite. The space program should be viewed as an investment, a resource, and an asset rather than an expense. It is both ironic and unfortunate that while the United States has previously led the race to space, it is the only one of the technically advanced nations in the world which has reduced the scope of its civilian space program. The Soviets have had a continuous manned presence in space since February 1987 aboard Mir which is their eighth space station since 1971. They have accumulated over 5000 man-days in space greatly exceeding our 1800. While Skylab, the U.S. space station launched in 1973, was larger and more sophisticated then than Mir is today, Skylab was abandoned in 1974 after only three manned visits and ultimately crashed to Earth because the Space Shuttle was not ready in time to rescue it from a decaying orbit. Meanwhile, the Soviet tortoise moves along slowly but surely gathering invaluable experience. While the U.S. is the only nation to land people on the moon, that was almost 20 years ago. Last year, the United States launched only eight rockets (none of them manned) while the Soviet Union launched a staggering 95. Domestic space services have become so poor that an American company was forced to contract with the Soviets to send a crystal-growing experiment aboard Mir next year. While our country's space program has been virtually paralyzed since the Challenger accident, a Soviet rocket lifts off every four days. Other countries have been forging ahead in space as well. Japan just completed a ground test of an SRB for their next generation rocket. France is putting satellites into orbit with their Ariane and currently Arianespace holds 56 percent of the world's orders. India just launched their Remote Sensing Satellite from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the Soviet Union. China has been very active and is gearing up for manned missions as is ESA. Italy just passed a bill to form the Italian Space Agency (ASI). Quite a different state of affairs from the 1960's when we were very active in space and most of these countries had not left the ground yet. Once the shuttle is operational again, the most important project for our space program is the space station. The space station is required for many reasons including: investigating the effects of long term exposure to zero-g in preparation for a manned Mars mission, serving as a staging area for future missions to Mars and the moon, producing high grade pharmaceuticals, developing the further commercial potential of space, challenging the Soviet lead in space stations, contributing to American pride and prestige, stimulating interest in science and engineering education, providing options for future endeavors in space and assuring free world leadership in space during the 1990s and beyond. The space station will give us a permanently manned presence in space and serve as a new national laboratory for advanced research and technology development. A manned mission to Mars is a topic which has been under discussion for many years and has surfaced in the media recently due to Soviet activites toward this end, namely the launch of probes to Mars. This project involves scientists from 10 other countries in addition to ESA. While the Soviets estimate the total cost of a manned mission to Mars (including the preliminary missions that are underway) to be a prohibitive(?) $200 billion, the U.S. spends 50% more than that on defense every year. In another comparison, it will cost $50 billion to remedy the current Texas bank situation. NASA's FY89 budget request of $11.488 billion (reduced to $10.2 billion by the House which is debating with the Senate over a final number) seems very small when compared to these other expenditures. The total estimated cost of the international space station, which has risen to $21 billion will be spread out over a decade but could be paid for in two years if funding were at the levels it was in the mid-1960s. Your interest and views for the space program are acknowledged and applauded and you are urged to support the current space station design as a necessary step for future advances in space. We need the space program because it is tantamount to our economy, our wealth, our security, and our general well being. Sincerely, Adam Brody These opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) (08/27/88)
Adam Brody wrote: > > The following letter is being prepared for mass distribution. > Please make comments and criticisms ... FLAME ON: I think this letter shows pretty well how deep-rooted are the ills afflicting the US space program. It is disheartening and disgusting to see that NASA and the manned space enthusiasts are still trying to dupe congress and the public with the same mumbo-jumbo they used to sell the Shuttle. I had hoped that the Challenger disaster and the wave of anti-NASA sentiment that followed would made them understand that one cannot build a solid space program on a foundation of over-inflated claims, populist cliches, half-truths, and plain lies. I had hoped to see honesty and professionalism replace demagogy and dirty politicking. But no, here they are again, playing the same old game, using the same old tricks, expecting us to believe that there is nothing wrong with their Shuttle and their Space Station that a few billion more won't cure. Sigh... > Millions of jobs have been created by the space program and > trillions of dollars have poured into the economy as a result. > For every dollar invested in the space program, seven dollars > are reinvested in the economy making space the best national > technology catalyst investment the Nation has made. Come on. Every billion dollars that NASA injects into the economy is a billion dollars that was sucked out of that same economy by the IRS. Sure, every dollar that NASA pays to a contractor is later passed on to a sub-contractor, then to a sub-sub-contractor, and so on. So what? That is true also of every dollar paid by Social Security to the unemployed. In fact, *every* dollar that is not burned or buried gets reinvested in the economy, not seven but infinitely many times over. > This country has also benefited from many spinoff technologies which > have improved the lives of millions of people. Recent spinoffs > include a device which improves the vision of individuals with > low-vision eyesight ... How many of these "spinoffs" have gone beyond the prototype stage and actually made it to the market? How many of those spinoffs actually resulted from *space* research (as opposed to generic high-tech research)? How many spinoffs would we get by spending the same amount of money as NSF or NIH grants? > The Soviets have had a continuous manned presence in space since > February 1987 aboard Mir which is their eighth space station since > 1971. They have accumulated over 5000 man-days in space greatly > exceeding our 1800. I would rather see a better justification for the manned space program than "The Russians are doing it". In fact, I would submit that the Russians are doing it mainly because the Americans are doing it... > Last year, the United States launched only eight rockets > (none of them manned) while the Soviet Union launched a > staggering 95. I note that you carefully avoid mentioning how much each country *spent* last year on their space programs, and how they divided the money between manned and unmanned missions. > The space station is required for many reasons including: > investigating the effects of long term exposure to zero-g in > preparation for a manned Mars mission, serving as a staging > area for future missions to Mars and the moon, ... In other words, we must waste billions in pointless manned missions today, to develop the technology needed to waste MORE billions in MORE pointless manned missions tomorrow. > ... producing high grade pharmaceuticals, developing the further > commercial potential of space, ... BUNK!!!! > A manned mission to Mars is a topic which has been under discussion > for many years and has surfaced in the media recently due to Soviet > activites toward this end, namely the launch of probes to Mars. Why do you have to resort to such sleazy propaganda tricks? You know pretty well that the Russian probes have as much to do with their manned program as Voyager had to do with the Shuttle. > NASA's FY89 budget request of $11.488 billion seems very small > when compared to [$300 billion for DoD, $50 billion for Texas > bank bailout,] and other expenditures. Now compare it to, say, the NSF budget... > The total estimated cost of the international space station, > which has risen to $21 billion ... You forgot to say that the cost was a mere $8 billion when NASA sold the idea to Congress. Also, note that $21 billion (or $30 billion, depending on the source) is only the current *estimate* of the cost. Nothing suggests that NASA's cost estimates have become more accurate since they sold the Shuttle ten years ago. FLAME OFF Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi * * * THE DREAM IS ALIVE * * * (so who needs Reality anyway?) DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.
greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) (08/29/88)
I have to agree that I've been very disappointed with NASA's handling of the space program. At this point, I don't think I'd protest if future funding were strictly limited to unmanned scientific missions. I could see where man-in-space would be useful if we were attempting very large projects that had to be launched in pieces and assembled in space, but the only project I hear about like that is the space station itself. Of course, there's a certain amount of romance in manned missions, but I really don't think that's worth what it costs. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers) (08/29/88)
In article <13294@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: > >I would rather see a better justification for the manned space program >than "The Russians are doing it". I don't know, it worked last time, so why not this time? I, for one, would not be inclined to be picky about why Congress might decide to give NASA some decent funding. >I note that you carefully avoid mentioning how much each country >*spent* last year on their space programs, and how they divided the >money between manned and unmanned missions. I note that you, also, avoided mentioning these things. What *are* the real numbers? >In other words, we must waste billions in pointless manned missions >today, to develop the technology needed to waste MORE billions in MORE >pointless manned missions tomorrow. POINTLESS MISSIONS?!!! How can you say that! You know as well as the rest of us that the space station could serve as a platform for establishing a permanent manned lunar base, and that with a lunar base we could ship into earth orbit almost all the materials necessary to build solar power satellites, which are far from useless. It could also serve as a base for and help develop technologies for missions to go get high metal-content asteroids from the belt to assuage future materials shortages. The other *points* to establishing a permanent manned presence in space are far too numerous to go through here. Suffice it to say that you are full of shit. >BUNK!!!! (in response to further comments about the usefulness of space) Hey, nice logic there. Bunk is such a lovely word, especially when it stands alone without a word of support. > >> NASA's FY89 budget request of $11.488 billion seems very small >> when compared to [$300 billion for DoD, $50 billion for Texas >> bank bailout,] and other expenditures. > >Now compare it to, say, the NSF budget... Now compare it to, say, NASA's budget in the 60's ... Keith Rogers
jeffrey@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Glenda L. Jeffrey) (08/30/88)
In article <13294@jumbo.dec.com> you write: >Adam Brody wrote: >FLAME ON: >> The Soviets have had a continuous manned presence in space since >> February 1987 aboard Mir which is their eighth space station since >> 1971. They have accumulated over 5000 man-days in space greatly >> exceeding our 1800. > >I would rather see a better justification for the manned space program >than "The Russians are doing it". In fact, I would submit that the >Russians are doing it mainly because the Americans are doing it... > I believe this is called competition... probably the single greatest motivator there is. Note that the *end result* is not so much that the Americans did it or that the Russians did it, but that the *human race* did it... even I, who get nationalistically choked up every time I see a shuttle launch (or explode :-( ...) have to acknowledge this. - Glenda gdwtch NASA/Langley Research Center jeffrey@amelia.nas.nasa.gov My views are not necessary those of my employer, and that's where the difficulty usually arises!
stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) (08/30/88)
I flamed: > > I think [Adam Brody's letter to Congress] shows pretty well how > deep-rooted are the ills afflicting the US space program. [etc.] Someone replied > > Suffice it to say that you are full of blip. Let me apologize to the net for the emotional and arrogant tone of my posting. (It's all the more embarassing, considering that I have often scolded others for doing the same). I definitely deserve all the tomatoes and rotten eggs. However, I do NOT apologize for the opinions expressed in that posting. I stand by them, word for word. > [Me:] I would rather see a better justification for the manned space > program than "The Russians are doing it". > [Keith Rogers:] I don't know, it worked last time, so why not this time? > I, for one, would not be inclined to be picky about why Congress might > decide to give NASA some decent funding. Did it REALLY work last time? You all deplore the way public support for the space program evaporated after Apollo, and the lack of clear purpose that has plagued NASA since then. Maybe the problem was that Apollo had the wrong goal in the first place: not "conquer Space" but merely "win the Moon race". Not surprisingly, once the race was over, the fans left the stadium, and the viewers turned to another channel. Why should things have been any different? Why do you expect things will be different after the space station race? (I could also try to explain why I think that government by fraud and deception is a bad idea, but it is 4:00am and I haven't had dinner yet, so I will let you figure it out.) > [Me:] I note that [the letter] carefully avoids mentioning how much > each country *spent* last year on their space programs, and how they > divided the money between manned and unmanned missions. > [Keith:] I note that you, also, avoided mentioning these things. > What *are* the real numbers? It's not fair, I asked first. :-) Anyway, here is a hint: find out how many of the 95 Russian launches last year were connected in any way to their manned space program, and how many of those were actually manned. > [Me:] In other words, we must waste billions in pointless > manned missions today, to develop the technology needed to > waste MORE billions in MORE pointless manned missions tomorrow. > [Keith:] POINTLESS MISSIONS?!!! How can you say that! > You know as well as the rest of us that the space station could > serve as a platform for establishing a permanent manned lunar > base, and that with a lunar base we could ship into earth orbit > almost all the materials necessary to build solar power > satellites, which are far from useless. First, I fail to see why the proposed NASA space station would make it much easier or cheaper to establish a lunar base. In fact, building and operating NASA's space station is likely to soak up most of the available space money and Shuttle launches for the next 10-20 years, with little room left for any other big projects such as the lunar base. Second, it is not at all certain that lunar materials would be competitive even for large structures like power satellites. Yes, I have read several studies that are supposed to prove that. They are all incredibly optimistic about the costs and technical problems involved in extracting metals from lunar rock and sunshine, transporting them to geosynchronous orbit, and converting them to usable parts. Note that most of the key technologies required for this plan have yet to be developed. Third, solar power satellites (SPS) are unlikely to be economically competitive in the foreseeable future. Note that even if structural materials can be brought from the moon, a lot of mass would still have to be launched from the Earth --- electronic devices, attitude motors, construction equipment, shelters and supplies for workers, etc. Now add to this the (far greater) costs of establishing the lunar mining operations. Even in the most optimistic estimates, the cost of SPS electricity turns out to be quite a bit more than the current price. > [Keith:] [The space station] could also serve as a base for > and help develop technologies for missions to go get high > metal-content asteroids from the belt to assuage future materials > shortages. At current prices, iron-nickel asteroids are worth less than a dollar a pound. You will need to process billions of pounds of asteroid just to pay the cost of sending a human there. Asteroid mining for Earth consumption is never to be competitive in the foreseeable future. > The other *points* to establishing a permanent manned presence > in space are far too numerous to go through here. I claim there is not one that stands up under close scrutiny. Take for example the production of pharmaceuticals in space. Indeed, there are some drugs that are worth more than the cost of transportation to and from the space station (>$5000/lb). However, such high prices are largely due to the high costs of developing, certifying, and marketing the product, and to the limited market for specialized drugs. When the production costs themselves are high, it is because the drug is produced from expensive materials (e.g. human pituitary glands), or is obtained in very small concentrations, so one needs to process tons of reagents or culture medium to obtain a pound of the final product. Therefore there is no economic advantage (in fact, a huge penalty) in moving any part of the production process to space. Besides, the pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a technological revolution brought about by genetic engineering. Suppose you find a drug for which space processing could be advantageous at at today prices. By the time you have designed, built and launched the necessary equipment, it is quite likely that someone would have found a Earth-based process that beats yours by orders of magnitude. This is precisely what happened to the project by McDonnell-Douglas to purify the drug erythropoyetin (sp?) by zero-g electrophoresis. The same objections apply to other proposed zero-g products, such as semiconductors, alloys, etc. Finally, note that any material processing on board of the space station or the Shuttle, whether for production or research, will be much more automated than in a typical Earth laboratory. For example, in the protein crystallization experiment that flew once (twice?) on the Shuttle, the only thing the astronauts had to do was to turn certain knobs at specified times. Why is it that experiments of this sort cannot be carried on by automatic equipment on unmanned labs? * * * I am hardly the only one to hold these views; I am basically repeating views that I have seen many times in the press. People of undisputed credentials have stated the same objections quite clearly, in popular magazines, in scientific journals, even in congressional hearings. To my knowledge there has been little effort from the part of the Shuttle and Space Station supporters to answer these objections. As Mr. Brody's letter and the above replies show, they either respond with personal insults, or simply ignore the objections and keep on repeating their old inflated claims. This is clearly a lost cause. It is obvious that the man-in-space enthusiasts and the NASA managers have decided to stick to the Shuttle and go ahead with the Space Station, largely for selfish political and emotional reasons, in spite of their huge costs and lack of concrete benefits. To the faithful disciples of Heinlein and Pournelle, the scientific and commercial applications of the space station are not the real justification for the manned program, but merely baits for the "congresscritters" and the tax-paying "idiots". (Many of the faithful have stated this quite explicitly in this newsgroup.) In their hearts they don't give a damn about cheap pharmaceuticals or amazing alloys or plentiful power; what they really want from the space program is just a chance to go up there. It doesn't matter that the trip will not make them any wiser, or the Earth any richer; they just want to go up there, presumably to impress their girlfriends and have something to brag about at parties. In fact, it doesn't even matter that their chances of ever getting there are less than one in a million, since an essential requirement to be a space enthusiast is the ability to ignore any numbers that could shake one's faith in the Dream. Above all, it doesn't matter that it costs tens of billions a year to keep their selfish dreams barely dreamable, for they firmly believe in their divine right have their expenses paid by those "idiots" who dare not share the Dream. Please note that I am not issuing a blanket condemnation against the professionals working for the space program, either in NASA or outside it. I believe they are in general competent and honest people, working hard for what they believe to be the right goals. Yet, as in any large organization with full-time membership, the good intentions of the individuals, being directed in many different directions, tend to cancel each other. The total momentum of the organization as a whole will include only the components that are common to all their members: the desire for stable jobs, for good salaries, for plenty of toys, and so on. I believe this is basically the reason why NASA put all its eggs in the Shuttle basket, why they are still committed to the Shuttle and to manned spaceflight, and why they now want the Space Station so badly. I do believe however that quite a few of the individuals connected to the space program are aware that many of NASA's arguments for the space station are bogus and deceptive, but have chosen not to debunk them in public, either because they have no qualms about using such means to protect their own jobs and further their own goals, or because they are afraid of not being invited to NASA parties any more if they they do. A couple of years ago I posted to this bboard many long messages along these lines, with plenty of numbers and objective arguments (oh yes, and plenty of drivel, too). I don't want to clog the net by re-posting those old articles. I hope this small sample will suffice to clarify my position with respect to Mr. Brody letter and the manned space program. To those who got this far, thanks for your patience, and my apologies if I have wasted your time. Jorge Stolfi stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decwrl!stolfi DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are not the sort of stuff my employer, my teachers, my friends, or my mother would like to be associated with.
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/31/88)
Well, wasn't THAT special. :-)
I'll tell you exactly what I think about this proposed "letter to
Congress et al." (from a NASA employee no less): it will get circular
filed promptly on receipt, and for good reason. Any Congressperson who
wants to hear that line rehashed only has to sit in on the next
subcommittee meeting. NASA spouts it all the time. If you want to do
some good for the space program via letter writing, you would be better
off visiting your local elementary or junior high school and asking a
science teacher to have the class write their own letters in their own
words. The only thing the letter writing American people can do to
help NASA is to put some *convincing* evidence of individual interest
on their representatives' desks. These guys turn a deaf ear to mass
postcard mailings because they know it's orchestrated, and they SURE as
hell don't need to be told that some guy out at Ames thinks we need the
Station! Now if Brody write a virulent ANTI-station letter, that might
get some attention... :-)
Anyway, not only is the text itself mostly preaching to the converted
(or the unconvertible), but it's a tissue of half-truths to boot. Jorge
pasted it pretty good so I'm not going to cover the same ground, but
let me just make a couple of points:
* The Eurojaps and others are STAYING in the private launch business.
Nothing Congress can do with the Station budget is going to make a
bit of difference. Smell the coffee folks.
* The Russians are GOING to Mars. We can go, we can stay, we can
cooperate or we can reivent the wheel ourselves at ruinous expense.
Congress doesn't need reminders from you or me about how far ahead
the Soviet program is; all they need to do is turn on CNN.
* We don't need to spend billions and wait a decade to find out about
the effects of long term weightlessness on the human body: what we
need is a library card in Star City. Good God, man, their database
*dwarfs* ours! There are certainly things we can do better than the
Soviets, but the "man in a can" race is over, and they won. Better
to cooperate -- our NMR scanners, their Mir-athons -- and really get
moving.
* Don't tell us what the Station is going to "give," because what it's
really going to do is TAKE, TAKE and TAKE until Congress either
gives up in disgust or eviscerates what's left of the space program
to keep it going. It happened with the Shuttle and I can
* FLAT * DAMN * GUARANTEE *
you it'll happen again with the Station, because once again we have
that special NASA albatross, the Platform Without a Mission.
* You want industry in space? Fine, drop the theatrics and build the
ISF plus a fleet of cheap, reliable ELV's. Corporate America has no
time to spend as hostage to Space Station Maybe. If "Freedom"
<gick> ever does get built, it will still probably be unsafe for
most of the things industry would like to do up there, so you'll be
back to Square One and staring AD 2020 in the face.
* You want prestige? Fine, get Hubble, Magellan, Solar Polar, VRM,
Mars Observer, Ulysses, and Ride's Mission to Planet Earth up
there. The hardware for an unprecedented Golden Age of exploration
is sitting in the hangars while you guys debate whether beige or
mauve looks better in 0g. [A cheap shot, folks, but worth it. :-)]
* You want consistent funding? Try establishing a track record of
setting affordable goals, then bringing them in on time and within
budget.
I'm happy to see individual initiative at the worker level, and I
appreciate Brody's enthusiasm. The above unvarnished opinions are not
intended as a personal attack, but only to reframe the issue perhaps a
little closer to reality. I also welcome comments.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
"None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF
will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) (08/31/88)
In article <1765@eneevax.UUCP>, kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > Suffice it to say that you are full of shit. I tried to send a private message, but the mail bounced. In the message, I said that I appreciated your defense of the value of space exploration, but you totally undermine your credibility when you resort to such intemperate outbursts. -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
amos@taux02.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (08/31/88)
I wonder why no one has mentioned this yet: Pro is to Con as Progress is to Congress. -- Amos Shapir amos@nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532)
jas@dadent (Jay Shrauner) (09/01/88)
In article <1765@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: >In article <13294@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes: >> >>In other words, we must waste billions in pointless manned missions >>today, to develop the technology needed to waste MORE billions in MORE >>pointless manned missions tomorrow. > > POINTLESS MISSIONS?!!! How can you say that! ... > ... The other *points* to >establishing a permanent manned presence in space are far too numerous to go >through here. Suffice it to say that you are full of shit. While I happen to be a big fan of manned space exploration, there are a few well known facts about manned space missions. First of all, far far more scientific data useful to man has been obtained through unmanned probes than anything gained from manned missions. Sure, we have a few moon rocks and such and one could argue that unmanned probes couldn't have been built cheaper to retrieve them all the same, but they hardly compare to the information about our solar system we have gained from the Pioneers, Voyagers, Mariners, etc. Nifty experients can be done on live TV in the Space Shuttle to please many people but the bottom line is that currently the US of A space program is still living off of data from the still operable Voyagers, etc. >>> NASA's FY89 budget request of $11.488 billion seems very small >>> when compared to [$300 billion for DoD, $50 billion for Texas >>> bank bailout,] and other expenditures. This point I must agree with. While we're at it, however, as seen from the space shuttle disaster probably spending more to EDUCATE people wouldn't hurt either. Jay Shrauner jas@dadent.wustl.edu
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (09/13/88)
In article <13306@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes, in part: >To the faithful disciples of Heinlein and Pournelle, the scientific >and commercial applications of the space station are not the real >justification for the manned program, but merely baits for the >"congresscritters" and the tax-paying "idiots". (Many of the faithful >have stated this quite explicitly in this newsgroup.) In their hearts >they don't give a damn about cheap pharmaceuticals or amazing alloys >or plentiful power; what they really want from the space program >is just a chance to go up there. It doesn't matter that the trip >will not make them any wiser, or the Earth any richer; they just want >to go up there, presumably to impress their girlfriends and have >something to brag about at parties. In fact, it doesn't even matter >that their chances of ever getting there are less than one in a million, >since an essential requirement to be a space enthusiast is the ability >to ignore any numbers that could shake one's faith in the Dream. Above >all, it doesn't matter that it costs tens of billions a year to keep >their selfish dreams barely dreamable, for they firmly believe in >their divine right have their expenses paid by those "idiots" who >dare not share the Dream. What *I* want from the space program is indeed `just a chance to go up there'. But look at the larger picture. The way we (`western society', if you want a specific handle: it may not be the right one, but it is at least close) went from where we were the 1400s to where we are now is by expending more and more energy every year. At the rate we are going, we will seriously damage *something* soon (estimates vary, anywhere from `too late' to a few hundreds of years from now). Thermodynamics is against us. We *must* change our energy usage curve. While extrapolation is risky, it is the best predictor we have. Extrapolation tells me that our society must move its heavy industry into space, freeze its output somewhere near its current levels, or forget about it altogether. The first option is expensive, yes, and dearly so, but as I see it, the latter two are worse. (Similar arguments eventually apply to the population, where the problem is far stickier.) In a nutshell, it comes down to survival. We must expand to survive, and eventually, we must invade space to expand. Someday even that may be insufficient, but at least we personally will not be around when our descendents get that far :-) . You may not agree with the first statement (`must expand to survive'); if not, we have a legitimate point of disagreement, about which I shall let others argue. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) (09/14/88)
In article <13530@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >In a nutshell, it comes down to survival. We must expand to survive, >and eventually, we must invade space to expand. Historically, we have indeed tended to expand rather than trying to make better use of what we already had, but this was only because it was cheaper to do so. There's still plenty of room for more growth through increased efficiency. Look at Japan for an example. It takes a LOT of energy to invade space. It is unclear that it will EVER be economic for most purposes. (Other than things like communications satellites). The quest for knowledge is a different thing, but we still haven't done most of the low-budget things yet. -- Greg Hullender uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg 3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (09/19/88)
[Followups directed to sci.space.] Using the thermodynamics curve as an excuse for going into space is just silly. No matter what happens vis a vis human exploration of space, the T-curve here on Earth is going to keep going right on up until catastrophe hits or we work something ground-based out. It is ruinously expensive to put even lightweight things up there -- heavy stuff would bankrupt the planet, or, even if we could afford it, would require building such an enormous ground-based spaceflight industry that the net energy expenditure (and thus Chris' T-curve) would zoom even higher. The bottom line is, in order to maintain the glorious progression since the 1400's etc. etc., we need to keep expending more and more energy *right here*. This is where the people are; this is where the people will continue to be. Even if we establish a self-sustaining separate presence in space with *millions* of people off Earth, it will be a statistically insignificant drop in the bucket by comparison with the billions left on Earth, who will probably reproduce just a little faster to fill the fractional percentage gap anyway. Jorge's hot words probably rankled a few readers, but he has a germ of truth in there. I identify three strains of popular space freakdom: Mr. Right Stuff, the Starship Trooper, and the New-Age Crystalline Holistic L5 Person. These are in order of arrival on the scene. Mr. Right Stuff was formed in the desert winds and backyards of 50's slide-rule America... he flies model rockets (now with his kids) in the back yard, wears aviator sunglasses and a pocket pen protector. He identifies with the astronauts, memorizes NASA jargon and takes the Winnebago to launches (even weathersat launches) on vacation time. The Starship Trooper wasted his youth on 60's SF and now toils away in some high tech sinecure, waiting for the "big move to space" to happen. He hates NASA and the Congress and loves tiny rocket shops and the military, basically because that's what it says in Heinlein. The Crystalline Holistic person is an interesting creature who used to be weirded out on yurts, pyramids and Kirlian auras in the 70's, but saw enough of those pictures of Earth from lunar orbit etc. and weirded out on space instead. Space will be an Aquarian place where we can all live in peace and harmony and paste rainbow decals on our quartz window panels. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)