wd9get@pur-ee.UUCP (Brandt) (08/13/84)
Thanks for all the many replys to my query about arguments for why
we should venture into space. Here are the replys I received so
far. If any of these bring up another good point, or you have an
alternitive point of view, please mail it to me. I'm always glad to
hear new arguments.
--Keith E. Brandt
pur-ee!wd9get
From inuxc!fred Tue Jul 31 10:10:40 1984
My favorite argument runs like this: The Earth has
finite resources. If as a race we restrict ourselved to only
Earths resources we are forced to play a zero sum game, i.e.
every time I win it someone else must be losing. This type
of situation is a prime cause of much unrest in the world and
in fact is a prime cause of wars.
The move into space and the use of extratresstial
resources breaks us out of the zero sum game. There is enough
material and energy out there that if I win, it is not at the
cost of someone else, they can win too.
Joe Blow on the street is not going to understand this but
he should at least understand that we are running out of fundamental
resources on the planet and that space exploration is likely to
help correct those shortages.
Fred
From ucbvax!mcgeer@ucbchip.Berkeley.ARPA Tue Jul 31 20:56:00 1984
Here are two good reasons:
(1) In direct benefits alone (weather forecasting, mineral discoveries,
communications), the space program has more than paid for itself (all in,
Mercury to the Shuttle, the cost of the program has been about $50 billion.
Better weather prediction has been worth conservatively ten times that, just
counting better crop yields, less damage from hurricanes, and so forth.
Mining discoveries are worth easily $500 billion as well). When spinoff
benefits - chips, doppler ultrasound, velcro, all manner of materials, and
so forth - are counted, the program has paid off a hundredfold over our
investment.
(2) Is it merely our lot to trudge this earth between birth and the grave,
wondering where our next meal is coming from, keeping our mind and our eyes
firmly upon the mud that we tread? Or should we, in these niggling few
years that a cruel nature allots us, strive, seek, find and never yield?
The space program is man's answer to the ultimate challenge of the
universe, and to our highest calling. It seems to me that $25 for each of
us is not too large a price to pay to wander among the stars, instead of
trudging in the muck.
Rick.
From ihnp4!vax135!ukc!dgd Wed Aug 1 19:37:48 1984
Probably not an argument to convince your voters (or maybe it is!):
You can afford it as the most economically powerful nation. Alas for
us poor Brits who must hang onto other peoples coat tails!
From decvax!mcnc!unc-c!dya Thu Aug 2 02:17:45 1984
'
Well, I'd tell Joe Average that the CT scanner, NMR, advances in pharm-
aceuticals, etc. were direct benefits of the intense research conducted during
the space programme. That's why he is * AROUND * to contemplate having his
medicare bills paid. As an example, pneumoencephalography was once a common
diagnostic procedure that had a significant mortality and morbidity to it which
is rarely, if ever performed when there is access to CT or NMR. The computational
power required to reconstruct diagnostic CT quality images is a direct result
of the problems with real time processing of space telemetry data.
Communications satellites are of inestimable value. Literally BILLIONS
(that's with a "B") of dollars have been saved with weather satellites, land
usage mapping, pollution studies, etc. There can be no value placed on the
good done by improved communications amongst the people of the world. In
many countries (such as India) communications satellites are used not for
beaming HBO to your local cable company, but rather for education to stamp
out basic societal ills such as substandard living conditions and overpopulation.
This, I might add, is often a gift from the U.S....we furnished India with
ATS-6 after its mission life was over in the U.S. The satellite is still in
use.
The problems of constructing rocket motors, such as the dynamics of
gas flow through nozzles (as a highly simple example), have led to basic
theoretical breakthroughs in engineering that directly benefit the masses.
Exhaust emission control in motor vehicles directly benefited from the
tremendous progress in fluids and combustion science. Pollution from
vehicles is about 1 % of that from pre-emissions engines (1966 for the real
world, 1963 for California).
Not to mention materials, advanced mechanical engineering techniques
like finite element analysis, organic chemistry, lubrication, reliability
engineering (No one would use a home computer with an MTBF of the Burroughs
B5700 or Illiac-IV), semiconductors, etc.
I have heard that the ROI on government investment in the aerospace
programme returns 10 times as much money in collected corporate and personal
taxes over a 10 year period. We'd still be watching round tube Zeniths
and couldn't conceive of doing "this" without the space programme. Medicare,
on the other hand, is a bad investment, being a rip-off.
..because individuals who do not exhibit healthy living are often the
ones who need it most. I would support a limit on Medicare benefits to anyone
with a disease which is attributable to cigarette smoking or chronic alcohol
abuse. If the money from lost productivity due to environmentally produced
self-inflicted illness were saved, we could have one heck of a space
programme...but that's another story.
-dya-
From ucbvax!THOMPSON@USC-ECLC.ARPA Thu Aug 2 03:58:25 1984
If i pay Joe Average's medicare bills, i will make his life a little
better. If i spend the money on space, i make my children's lives
better. No contest.
-mark <thompson@eclc>
ps. If your friend Joe will pay my share of welfare, medicare and
social security, i will pay his share of NASA's budget.
-------
From ucbvax!REM@MIT-MC.ARPA Thu Aug 2 03:58:50 1984
Eventually we must leave this whole solar system if we expect to
survive at all. But even sooner we must expand beyond Earth to have
good chance of surviving the next planetwide disaster such as massive
bombardment with comets or nuclear war or really bad epidemic
(possibly caused by germ warfare out of control). Given that fact, why
wait until the last minute when we don't know ahead of time when that
last minute may be? It may be tomorrow and we may already have waited
too long. It may be 20 years from now and we'll just barely make it if
we spend our whole GNP on it starting now. It may be 50 years from now
and we'll make it if we proceed at full normal speed without letting
up. We don't know, and if we wait to find out before we start
developing habitat in space it'll surely be too late. Let's develop
the capability to survive now, then later if it turns out
Earth-disaster isn't immediate and space-life isn't really lots of fun
we can sit on our laurels with space-life as our "lifeboat" when the
disaster does approach.
With massive proportions of our national budget dedicated to a single
attempt to survive, by massive military buildup in the hope that MAD
will save us from the USSR and all other possible causes of our demise
will not strike any time soon, isn't it reasonable to spend some money
on another attempt to survive, by expanding into space, in case MAD
doesn't work or any of the other kinds of disasters surprizes us?
From ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!ames!al Thu Aug 2 04:34:32 1984
Here are some things we get now, after only 20 years of work in the field:
Communications:
o Live broadcasts around the world (e.g., Olympics)
o Inter-continental telephone
o Direct broadcast TV (just starting)
o Video conferencing - used for business and education
Earth observation:
o Weather prediction
o Pollution monitoring
o Arms control
o Prevent nasty military surprises (Pearl Harbor would be impossible
with today's spy satellites)
o Resource surveys (e.g., crop prediction)
o Resource location (e.g., oil and gas formations)
Science
o Planetary pictures and close up inspection
o All kinds of astronomy - stellar, galactic, solar, infra-red, etc.
o Materials science
Exitement
Here's what we will undoubtedly get within a decade or two:
Materials
o Improved computer chips
o New drugs, e.g., possibly a cure for diabetes
o Stronger materials
o Better understanding of materials processes leading to improved
ground production.
Tourism
o A chance for fairly rich folks to orbit. In the longer term, the
cost might come down to present trip to Europe style vacations.
Retirement
o Many of the problems of aging would be allieviated by removing
gravity. A low or zero G retirement community might be viable
soon after the year 2000 if we step on it.
More of the same for everything listed under right now.
But most of all, in the very long term (several decades) , we get real estate.
And lots of it. It has been estimated that the three largest
asteroids contain sufficient
material to construct space colonies with a livable area equal to several
thousand times the entire surface area of Earth - including oceans and
inhospitable mountains, desert and jungle. What's more, every inch of that
territory can be totally cherried out (I reveal my Southern California
upbringing).
The main issue in convincing people of the worth of the space program is to
relieve them of their inaccurate idea of the cost. To illustrait, note that
6 to 8 days of DOD or social program operations is equal, in cost, to a
year of NASA, or the entire space station budget (roughly).
From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!keves Tue Aug 7 23:05:19 1984
Ok. If anyone out there reads SF, you have probably come across most
of the reasons for space travel. I can think of a few off hand, but
I wont go into details.
1. Population growth on Earth.
2. Life off Earth. Technology and wars possible. We always seem to
need wars.
3. Fun and adventure. (More Heinlein oriented)
4. Mineral Wealth of Asteroids and Planets.
5. Better factory conditions for producing flawless "stuff".
6. Evolution of Man.
7. Expansion of Man's empire.
8. Gain in knowledge about just about everthing.
9. Immediate gain in technology. IE. Pocket Calculators,etc...
And Most Importantly,
The SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Hope it helps
--
"A is A" - Ayn Rand
Name: Brian Keves USnail: UCSD Computer Center
Usenet: ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!keves C-010
...!sdcsvax!sdcattb!za62 La Jolla, Ca. 92093
From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!tekig1!mikeha Thu Aug 2 23:00:37 1984
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pur-ee.UUCP
It may not be possible to convince Joe Average of the
benefits of continued funding of NASA and research in space,
generally.
Still, an attempt should be made. For "ammunition", I
refer Mr. Brandt to "the dean of space-age fiction".
Robert Heinlein has made a living of pointing out in
many not-so-subtle ways that the exploration of space is one
of those rare government-sponsored projects that has created
more wealth than it has consumed, one way or the other.
Apropos (and, most especially apropos) Mr. Average's
preference for having his medical care subsidized, see
"Spinoff" in Heinlein's _E_x_p_a_n_d_e_d _U_n_i_v_e_r_s_e (c. 1980, Robt.
Heinlein, published by Ace Books, N.Y., NY)
The article is primarily an abridgement of Heinlein's
testimony before the House Select Committee on Aging and the
House Committee on Science and Technology on the subject of
"Applications of Space Technology for the Elderly and Handi-
capped."
Heinlein points out a number of the life-prolonging
medical spinoffs of space technology, rather colorfully
illustrating his points by relating the use of these spin-
offs in the case of a medical problem of his own.
Joe Average might consider what another ten years of
life is worth. No, I don't mean ten years of decrepitude,
but ten healthy years made possible by a technology that
would not exist but for the space program.
<from M. Van Handel, Tektronix mikeha>
From ihnp4!qubix!msc Sun Aug 5 15:57:37 1984
Because the world's economy is based on continual expansion. This isn't
going to change. The only way for this to continue is if we expand off
this planet. Also we can move dirty industries into space and think about
space colonies since the population keeps expanding.
To summarize, it's the only way the people of this planet can continue
the way they they have been going for hundreds (thousands?) of years.
Mark
From inuxc!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!ames!eugene Sun Aug 5 15:28:41 1984
Justifying the space program using 'spinoffs' does not buy it in Congress.
First, many so called spinoffs, electronic minaturization (sp) a good example,
have been argued down because that would have happened anyway (NASA didn't
really have much to do with it) or that has been argued that "free enterprise"
did the work. Second, spinoffs are highly unpredictable, extreme case,
justifying chemical warfare research because of possible spinoffs to
cancer research [This work has been done at U of U]. So, I stopped arguing
this track, but I do acknowledge benefits (Tang).
No, Joe Blow on the street needs to see that we are living in the space
age. For example, the theory of relatively is just seeing "practical" use: we
are starting to think about wire lengths in electronics, perhaps the consumer
of the future might, too. The space age is now involved with many aspects
of day to day life. All you need to do to see how vital some of this is:
1) turn off all weather satellites, especially during storm
seasons. Don't forget to tell people that they could be used.
2) turn off all communication and TV satellites
3) turn off numerous other navigation and satellites
This might be akin to turning off all traffic lights, but a bit more
removed. Perhaps, we should not subsidize space so much.
We are heavily involved in the space age: even arms control to an extend.
Direct research such as plantary exploration gives us a comparison
of our planet to others, and directly enlarges our understanding. This
reason is subtle, and almost borders on spinoffs, but it is not a spinoff.
Lastly, the most difficult to fathom reason, we must explore space, because
that is what separates us from the rest of the cosmic 'slime' on spaceship
earth. [Sagan would have used more elioquent words: 'star stuff']
Our desire for exploration is what separates us from the more primitive
tribes (my favorite are the Sherpas, as I am a climber). Modern man
got where he is because of his sense of time and the future (planning ahead).
Many other cultures (few left) are unable or unwilling to utilize time.
Modern man has to learn to balance present needs with future desires.
If we let the present dominate our thinking [it is important], then
we fall back down the evolutionary ladder.
I think your (my descendents came East, same difference) Westward migration
and subsequent Alaska and imperialist (to a degree) fortes into other
nations are a reflection of this latter. Space might give us an
opportunity to continue without killing ourselves. Let's hope we
can continue without:
1) destroying the Earth (a spacecraft) and ourselves
2) ruining other worlds in the process
I have heard social commentators mention '"Japanese" island mentality'
as a positive social force. Perhaps, we need a bit of "Earth island
mentality," too.
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,dual,menlo70,hao}!ames!aurora!eugene
emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
p.s. I wish I could be as eloquent as Carl.
From ihnp4!dual!amd!decwrl!sun!tj Wed Aug 8 03:58:24 1984
One very convencing reason that I use a lot is that the Human
race will not be able to survive otherwise. If we do not get
off this planet and reduce the risk of being able to wipe out the
race in one blow, then...
Cal Thixton
Sun Microsystems
p.s. where is Luke when you need him?
From ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!pyuxww!pyuxn!u1100a!abnjh!estate Fri Aug 10 23:34:24 1984
"Because It's There!"
Sorry, my fingers got away for a minute, but their back now.
Good Reasons:
1. Incredable advances in medicine.
2. Incredable advances in technology (silicon chips etc.)
3. A reasonable place from which to monitor the Earth.
4. A new place to dump our wastes.
5. It's fun.
6. The creation of previously unheard of alloys.
etc...
And not only that, but if we survive long enough we might be able to
convince the government to have a war up there instead of down here!
And, if that fails, maybe we can all go up there and let them have a
war down here!
(Visions From The Orcrest Stone)
Carl D.
From inuxc!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Tue Aug 7 18:37:10 1984
From: Duncan A. Buell <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
The space program--how do we justify it to Congress?
Beats the hell out of me, and I have been close to the space
program since my father learned rocketry in Huntsville in
1951. How does Congress justify spending money on the arts?
on public TV? How did the Duke of Brunswick justify subsi-
dizing Gauss?
Apart from the obvious (justified or unjustified) desires of
the military for space ability, the people who want to
explore space do it, I suppose, because it's there, because
it would be a denial of some of our more fundamental lusts
to have the technology to "look beyond the ranges" and not
do so. And Congress pays for it because they can be sucked
in by the same urges.
That, I think, is all there is to it. That certainly does
not suggest practical approaches to going after continued
funding. Should the turkeys outnumber the visionaries in
Congress, the space program can expect lean years--and has
seen some of them.
On the other hand, maybe this does suggest funding
approaches. Don't try to show that it's centsible to go
into space. Just sell the dream. Rational arguments are
always in danger of being refuted by better rational argu-
ments. A good irrational hunger is a much better bet.
No flames in response to this, please. I really don't know
any sure-fire justifications for going into space that
aren't military. I do know that we'd be less as a species
if we didn't succumb to some of the urges we have, like
pointing up and wanting to go there.
From inuxc!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA Thu Aug 9 16:30:00 1984
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
What if a very hard study showed that greater relative funding of space
exploration over other activities increased our viability, at least as a nation.
Such a study may be doable even by just the collaboration of those on this
list. If it turned out that a significant increase in viability would result,
would it have any impact on congress?
-- kirkbsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS) (08/17/84)
[The world is a Klein bottle]
I justify space in two major ways: (1) if Ragnarok (WWIII, the Nightfall War,
etc.) ever occurs, we'll survive as a species; and (2) if we do NOT try, we are
admitting that the universe is too much for us. Historically speaking, this is
equivalent to racial suicide even without war -- we would stagnate into obli-
vion. I will not accept this fate; I am a wolf, not a sheep (cf. BEYOND THIS
HORIZON).
Same author, different note: The afterword to "Spinoff" in EXPANDED UNIVERSE
says this about funding attempts:
"No, to most citizens of the United States the entire space
program plus all its spinoffs is not worth even 5c per day;
the polls (and letters to Congress) plainly show it. And
they won't believe that 5c figure even if you do the arith-
metic right in front of their eyes. They will still think
of it as 'all that money' being 'wasted' on 'a few rocks'."
Sometimes I grow weary of public ignorance. It takes a dream to escape this;
perhaps this explains the popularity of the biggest argument I know for space
exploration, dating from September 8, 1966: an argument that begins with the
phrase "SPACE: The Final Frontier"...
--bsa
--
Brandon Allbery: decvax!cwruecmp{!atvax}!ncoast!bsa: R0176@CSUOHIO.BITNET
^ Note name change!
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, OH 44131 <> (216) 524-1416
"The more they overthink the plumbin', the easier 'tis tae stop up the drain."