fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) (12/11/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** >> A manned Mars trip should have low priority. The following items >> are more important: >> >> (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit >> (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled) >> (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's >> (4) A LEO space station >> (5) A GEO space station >> (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist >> (7) A lunar base >> (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids >> > I think that we (the readers of this group and ME) spend too much time >thinking of the practical and economical reasons for space related >activities. There has been much discussion on how to justify our >favorite program. What we need to concentrate on is not the REAL >reasons why our program should be funded, but the reasons that will >CAUSE our program to be funded. ...... >The purpose of this article is not to say that we should stop thinking >of GOOD reasons to justify space programs. What it is meant to say is >that when we try to SELL our programs, we must use some political savvy. >REMEMBER that the space budget is not fixed. Congress can vote us >more money if they think it is politically good move. ************************************************ excuse me for adding my $0.02. As much as I love the phrase "REAL MEN DON'T JUSTIFY ANYTHING" I think in this case it is wrong. If our intent is to do more than send robot probes to examine the universe around us, our efforts and limited resources must be directed at projects that will demonstrate the economic payback from working/building/mining/etc. off the planet. If we fail to "justify" space development in terms of economics, the space efforts of humanity will be nothing more that a series of GRANDSTANDING displays of technological prowess, forever controlled by the whim of politicians. However, once working in space starts turning a profit, the migration of the race off the planet is assured. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a manned mission to Mars is more important than developing a transportation system that lowers the cost per pound to LEO. inuxe!fred
spock@iham1.UUCP (Ed Weiss) (12/12/85)
>>> A manned Mars trip should have low priority. The following items >>> are more important: >>> >>> (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit >>> (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled) >>> (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's >>> (4) A LEO space station >>> (5) A GEO space station >>> (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist >>> (7) A lunar base >>> (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids >>> >> >> I think that we (the readers of this group and ME) spend too much time >>thinking of the practical and economical reasons for space related >>activities. There has been much discussion on how to justify our >>favorite program. What we need to concentrate on is not the REAL >>reasons why our program should be funded, but the reasons that will >>CAUSE our program to be funded. >> >>...... >> >>The purpose of this article is not to say that we should stop thinking >>of GOOD reasons to justify space programs. What it is meant to say is >>that when we try to SELL our programs, we must use some political savvy. >>REMEMBER that the space budget is not fixed. Congress can vote us >>more money if they think it is politically good move. >************************************************ >excuse me for adding my $0.02. > >As much as I love the phrase > >"REAL MEN DON'T JUSTIFY ANYTHING" > > .... > >If we fail to "justify" space development in terms of economics, the >space efforts of humanity will be nothing more that a series of >GRANDSTANDING displays of technological prowess, forever controlled >by the whim of politicians. However, once working in space starts >turning a profit, the migration of the race off the planet is assured. >I'll leave it to you to decide whether a manned mission to Mars is more >important than developing a transportation system that lowers the cost per >pound to LEO. > > inuxe!fred > Sorry, Fred. I don't mean to get you upset. I think we fundamentally agree. I think the items you state ARE more important in the short run and will be better for us in the long run. What I'm saying is that maybe a GRANDSTANDING display will have the side effect of giving us a lower cost per pound launch capability, and other good stuff. I just seems hard for us to get funding for GOOD reasons. Good reasons don't get our funders elected. -- Ed Weiss ihnp4!iham1!spock --> Live Long and Prosper <--