dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (03/25/86)
The following is from private mail; posted with Rick's permission. > From: ihnp4!ucbvax!mcgeer@ji.berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer) > Subject: Re: (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.) > > It is absolutely irrelevant what a great thing teleoperated devices > might be in 20 years. The question is what do we need to do NOW > so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines > and solar power satellites. The Japanese will build the robots > regardless. The space station - the shuttle - these things won't > just happen. > > I think Paul's point is that none of these things will be economically viable > in 20 years anyway, Shuttle, Space Station, or TAV notwithstanding. I don't > agree with him, but *I can't prove it*; certainly most of the major studies No one is going to be able to "prove it" except after the fact. The best that can be done now is to make a solid business case. Such a case cannot be made, not because of the intrinsic lack of viability of these ideas, but because the required preliminary work(and hence risk) is far too great for any profit-making company to undertake. Hence, we must **get with it** and do the preliminary work as a nation. We must build the infrastructure to support larger ventures, including: STS(shuttle & TAV) space station in LEO station in GEO station at L2(functionally a lunar station) the OMV the reusable OTV This is what the President's Commission of space is widely rumored to be asking for AND IT MAKES SENSE. > that I've seen up to now support his position. We can argue that the SPS > study, for example, left out some crucial stuff -- it didn't count the That's for SURE. The most important consideration left out was the use of lunar/asteroidal materials("too risky"). I strongly doubt that any major space construction project is possible without the use of materials from non-terrestrial sources. In this context, the infamous DEO report on solar power satellites that came up with the one trillion dollar figure and the need for hundreds(nay - thousands) of shuttle flights must be regarded not as a serious investigation of solar power satellites but as an attempt to prevent solar power satellites from competing for scarce research funds within DEO. > environmental cost of coal, for example (just as the anti-nukes don't;but any > Canadian will give you an earful about the environmental costs of coal, since > Canada bears the burden of acid rain). But we can't prove that anything done > in space will prove competitive with earth-based technologies. I'm sure Paul I'm not sure what you mean, but there is every reason to suppose that communication satellites can and do compete with Earth-based technologies in many markets. There is a strong case that materials processing in space will be competitive with Earth-based technologies once we get past the current R&D phase. In the final analysis, the only way to answer the critics is to start a business and make money in space. > would agree that IF there were any construction in space worth doing RIGHT > NOW, that humans would be the answer. But his point is, given that you're See above: there is plenty of stuff we need to construct in space right now, and I didn't even mention satellite repair and the construction of large communication platforms. If we wait 25 years, we'll still need 20 years to build it all. Robotics is not a magic wand that will build space stations for us. We need **operating experience** and there's only one way to get it. We need the 20 years of research in zero gee or we'll still be on square one bickering about whether or not materials processing in space makes sense. > going to wait 25-50 years anyway, why not do a Manhattan project in robotics > right now, as opposed to launching essentially uneconomic Shuttles? > > -- Rick. > As I have already mentioned, the money and technical effort going into robotics/AI/computers already beggars the Manhattan project. More is just a drop in a bucket. R&D already may be proceeding as fast as our organizations and economies can absorb the innovations. However, a similar effort in TAV/Shuttle/Space station technology DOES NOT EXIST. Robots will be built - by the Japanese if no one else. We are the technology leaders in space. The Russians have copied the shuttle. The ESA(and eventually the Japanese) are building Dyna-soars while learning from the shuttle's mistakes. However, if we take off 20 years to build robots & TAVs, we'll probably never catch up. The Russians will have done 25 years of research on their uneconomic space station and using their uneconomic Proton launch vehicles. They'll know how to live and work in space - and we won't. Something tells me the information won't be for sale, and in any case the experience is non-transferable! The question we should be asking is: why are we suddenly demanding NASA make the shuttle economic when Congress DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO BUILD EITHER AN ECONOMIC SHUTTLE OR A FLEET LARGE ENOUGH TO BE ECONOMIC. We as a nation have once again been penny wise and pound foolish. The tragedy is that our competitors are not very forgiving. It should be clear to all that if ESA, China, Japan, and the USSR are going to offer subsidized launch services, we'll have to also - just to keep in the game. We've lost the compact disk market, the VCR, the compact car, the radio/TV market, etc. etc. etc. Can we afford to lose out here as well? As far as I'm concerned the responsiblity for the Challenger disaster must be shared between the NASA managers who were in such a rush to launch that they slipped up and the OTA/OMB/Congressional penny pinchers who spent ten years strangling the shuttle and THEN turned around and pressured NASA to "make it pay." Dale